^m
Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive
in 2008 witii funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
littp://www.arcliive.org/details/americanrelationOOcalluoft
%'^
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
H. B. ADAMS, Editor.
History is past Politics and Politics are present History. — Frftfiian
VOLUME XIX
DIPLOMATIC AND
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
io5
baltimore
The Johns Hopkins Peess
1901
%%i. ;^rteb«nn>af6 Company
BALTIMORE, MD., U. S. A.
COPVKIGHT, I9OI
BY THB JOHNb HOI'KINb PRESS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I-III. America in the Pacific and the Far East. By J. M.
Callahan 9
IV-V. State Activities in Relation to Labor in the United States.
By W. F. Willoughby 187
VI-VII. History of Suffrage in Virginia. By J. A. C. Chandler. 279
VIII-IX. The Maryland Constitution of 1864. By W. S. Myers. 353
X. Life of Commissary James Blair, Founder of WiUiam
and Mary College. By D. E. Motley 455
Xl-Xn. Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. By
G. L. P. Radcliffe 511
" The story of America in the Pacific grandly deserves a volume. . . . For over a cen-
tury we have had an army of pioneers who scarcely dreamed of the magnitude of the move-
ment they were leading." — li'm. E. Griffis.
" No one can behold the silent and persevering efforts of our countrymen in the Pacific
without a feeling of pride and exultation." — R.y. Cleveland, 1S43.
" To every lover of his country, as well as to those more immediately concerned in com-
merce, it must be a pleasing reflection, that a communication is thus happily opened between
us and the eastern extremity of the globe." — Samuel Shaiv, 1785.
" On the whole, it must be a satisfactory consideration to every American, that his country
can carry on its commerce with China under advantages, if not in many respects superior,
yet in all cases equal, to those possessed by other people." — Ibid., 1787.
" The future history of the world must be achieved in the East." — IV. H, Trescot, 184Q.
" Who does not see then, that every year hereafter, European commerce, European
politics, European thought and European activity, although actually gaining force, and
European connections although actually becoming more intimate, will, nevertheless, sink in
importance; while the Pacific ocean, its shores, its islands and the vast region beyond will
become the chief theatre of events in the world's great hereafter." — Senator Seward, 1852.
" Expansion seems to be recognized, not by the difficulties of resistance, but by the moder-
ation which results from our own internal constitution. . . . Commerce has brought the
ancient continents near to us, and created necessities for new positions — perhaps connections
or colonies there — and, with the trade and friendship of the elder nations, their conflicts and
collisions are brought to our doors and to our hearts. . . . Even prudence will soon be
required to decide whether distant regions, either east or west, shall come under our pro-
tection, or be left to aggrandize a rapidly spreading and hostile domain of despotism." —
W. //. Srward, 1852.
Series XIX Nos. 1-3
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor
History is past Politics and Politics are present History. — Freeman
AMERICAN RELATIONS
IN THE
pacific and THE FAR EAST
1784-1900
By JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN, Ph. D.
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
JANUARY-MARCH, 1901
Copyright 1901, by
JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
s/S
' s
C3f
Z^t Bora (^afttmorc (pre«e
THR r Kir.DHNWAI D COMPANY
BAI TIMOHH, MO., U. S. A.
PREFACE
The following chapters on the origin and evolution of
American enterprise and policy in the Pacific and the Far
East are the outgrowth of a course of lectures delivered by
the author in 1899-1900, before graduate students in the
department of history and politics of the Johns Hopkins
University.
Lectures treating of the relations of the United States
with Alaska and Behring Sea, Transandine America, and
isthmian transit routes have been reserved for publication
elsewhere.
For facilitating my investigations at Washington, D. C,
my sincere acknowledgments are due to Mr. Andrew H.
Allen, Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the De-
partment of State, and Messrs. A. P. C. Griffin, Chief Bibli-
ographer, and Hugh A. Morrison, of the Library of Con-
gress. For encouragement in this and other fields of re-
search, I am under obligation to Professor Herbert B.
Adams, of Johns Hopkins University.
James Morton Callahan.
Johns Hopkins University ,
Jan. /, jgoT.
CONTENTS
Introduction ..........
I. — Pioneers in Trade and Discovery : Early Commercial
Enterprises between the American Coast and China
II. — Occupation of Madison Island in the War of 1812
III. — Early American Interests on the Pacific Coast
IV. — Early Relations of Whalers and Traders with the
Natives ......
V. — The United States Exploring Expedition, 1839-43
VI. — Colonial Establishments
VII. — Unlocking the Gates of the Orient
Japan .....
China .....
Corea .....
VIII. — Americanization of Hawaii .
IX. — Relations in Samoa
X. — Occupation of the PhiHppines
Appendix ......
Index .......
13
25
30
49
60
72
72
84
1 1 1
114
135
149
165
175
INTRODUCTION.
The Pacific — the sea of Eastern legends — upon whose
warm currents unwilling emigrants were carried to primeval
America, and a place of interest and excitement which
Europe long hoped to reach by some passage across the
American continent/ for over a century has mirrored upon
its waves the silent and persevering efforts of American
' The Pacific was unknown to Europeans when Columbus sailed
in search of the Indies in 1492, and when England sought a north-
west passage in 1497. It was first seen by Balboa from an eminence
on the Isthmus of Darien; and after the remarkable voyage of
Magellan, in 1520, the " South Sea " became a place of interest and
excitement. England, through the influence of her daring buc-
caneers who appeared on the scene, friends to the sea, but foes to
all on its waves, soon rose like a sleeping leviathan to rule the
deep. The Cape of Good Hope route to the Indies was found to
be better than that by Cape Horn, but the idea of cutting a canal
through the Isthmus was early suggested, and the hope of a wes-
tern passage to the Indies did not finally die out for many years.
The English, in the days of Gilbert, had visions of reaching the
Pacific by the St. Lawrence, and the early settlers of Jamestown
sailed up the Chickahominy with the same thought. Fictitious
ideas of wealth to be obtained in the South Pacific resulted in the
" South Sea Bubble " and were soon afterwards dispelled by voy-
ages of Wallis, Carteret and later explorers. While the conflict
with her American colonies was in progress, England was putting
forth efforts to control the commerce of the Northwest coast. In
1776, Captain James Cook was sent to explore the coast and, after
discovering the Sandwich Islands, landed at Nootka sound in 1778.
He then sailed through Behring Straits, and returned to the
Sandwich Islands. All previous voyagers had sailed along the
coast of South America to Panama or California, and then across
the Pacific to the south of the Sandwich Islands. Cook did not
confine himself to former tracks, but made accurate surveys of his
own route for the use of subsequent voyagers. Besides the Sand-
wich Islands he visited the Friendly and Society islands, and New
Zealand. He wrote of his discoveries along luxuriant isles and
picturesque shores where perfumes were borne on every breeze,
and Vancouver and many other explorers followed.
10 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [10
citizens who. trained in the school of hardships, seeking
new fields of daring adventure, romance or maritime enter-
prise, were the pioneers in discovering safe paths and har-
bors, and in obtaining commercial knowledge of the Pacific,
which led the way for American influence in the Far East.
Its waters were navigated by American trading vessels
soon after the Revolution. In 1784, the Empress of China,
fitted out at New York, reached Canton laden with ginseng.
Cither vessels were soon fitted out in Boston, to engage in
trade between China and the Northwest coast — in which
Jefferson showed a lively interest. The number of vessels
engaged in trade, or in pursuing the sperm whale, soon
increased rapidly. Though the danger from French priva-
teers in 1778, the seizures by Spanish authorities at Val-
paraiso in 1800, the embargo of 1807, the acts of Peruvian
corsairs before 1813.' and the effects of the War of 1812,'
were depressing in their effects on enterprise, after 181 5
American commerce and fisheries in the Pacific were re-
newed with vigor and continued to increase.
During the Spanish-American revolution, the influence
of American sailors played no unimportant part along the
coasts west of the Andes. Even at that early date, a United
States consul at Manila, under instructions from Monroe,
was studying the conditions in the Philippines, and report-
ing on the prospects for American trade there. In mid-
ocean, the natives were gradually introduced to the virtues
of a higher civilization, whose vices, also, they often saw.
As commerce with the islands and the Far East in-
* In April, 1813, J. R. Poinsett, sent to remonstrate against the
acts of the Peruvian corsairs, directed the Chilean army in a suc-
cessful attack upon the Limian forces.
* During the War of 1812 many American whalers in llu- I'acific
were captured and burned or turned intd British transports. Tlic
island of Nantucket alone lost twenty-seven ships. Captain David
Porter, entering the Pacific to protect American interests, de-
stroyed a number of British whalers, and occupied Madison island
as a United States naval and supply station, hut was finally de-
feated by the British near the harbor (if Valparaiso.
11] Introduction. 11
creased/ the necessity of some national protection and
supervision '" induced the American government, after 1825,
to keep a naval squadron in the Pacific." It was the interest
of the entire nation to preserve friendly relations with the
islands, prevent the evils growing out of desertions and
mutinies, investigate the irregular conduct of libertines who
were so far removed from the arms of the civil law, and
make surveys and charts that would lessen the dangers of
shipwreck.' In 1831 the Potomac was sent to the coast oi
distant Sumatra to retaliate upon the natives of Quallah
Battoo for their outrageous seizure of an American trading
vessel. For the purpose of protecting and extending com-
merce with the East, Edmund Roberts, a sea-captain, was
sent in 1832 to negotiate treaties and obtain safe ports.
After much discussion and delay the United States Explor-
ing Expedition, projected by J. N. Reynolds and others,
was organized under Captain Wilkes, and from 1839 to
1841 examined many parts of the Pacific, sailing far toward
the south polar regions and northward to the Sandwich
Islands and Oregon.
By the settlement of Oregon and the acquisition of Cali-
fornia, the United States became almost a neighbor to Rus-
sia, Japan and China, and an arbiter in the affairs of the
Pacific, the sea of great and increasing activity. With her
keels plowing the waves of the Polynesian world, and the
western waters of the Pacific, she soon renewed her efforts
to open the gates of the stubbornly exclusive Orient to the
commerce of the West, increased her interest in the Sand-
* By 1829 there were about 100 United States vessels calling at
the Hawaiian Islands in a period of \2 months, with a tonnage of
3500 and valued at $5,000,000.
^ Benjamin Rodman, of New Bedford, writing J. N. Reynolds,
June II, 1836. suggested that a superintending influence over "our
marine colonies " was just as important as the establishment of
governments and law in our territories.
* During the South American revolt the United States had kept
a small squadron on the west coast of Chile and Peru.
" The log-books of American whalers were a valuable source of
information.
12 Affwrican Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [12
wich Islands where conditions after 1850 were preparing
the way for a voluntary offer of annexation, took steps to
protect American rights to the Guano Islands, contem-
plated the establishment of distant naval and coaling sta-
tions, conducted explorations along the eastern coasts of
Asia and in the Northern Pacific, and threatened to bom-
bard the delinquent Fijis.
The Pacific felt the thrill of awakening life, and gradually
our back gardens beyond the Cordilleras became front ter-
races. In 1867 a regular line of steamer service was estab-
lished between San Francisco and the Asia coast. Soon
afterward, Seward, who had watched the growing import-
ance of " the historic sea of the future," purchased Alaska
and the Aleutian Islands and brought us within 45 miles of
Russia and 700 miles of Japan.
The policy of acquiring distant islands naturally evolved
with the course of events. The determination to allow no
territorial control which would cut Hawaii adrift from the
American system developed into the policy of annexation.
The desire to hold a naval station at Pango Pango, led to
participation, first, in a tripartite international convention
for the neutrality and government of the Samoan Islands,
and finally, in an agreement for partition. The logic of
history and the exigencies and incidents of the humani-
tarian war of intervention to end Spanish misrule in Cuba,
increasing American opportunity, duty and responsibility,
resulted in the acquisition of the Philippines and other
islands.
The United States has now become a leading power in
international politics, with increased means for the ac-
complishment of her beneficent mission in the Pacific and
the Far East.
CHAPTER I.
PIONEERS IN TRADE AND DISCOVERY.
Early Commercial Enterprises Between the
American Coast and China.
Maritime enterprise was one of the earliest characteris-
tics of the American people. The colonists soon had many
trading vessels. The early settlers, becoming accustomed
to work, privations and frugal habits, were led to daring
enterprise and determination to secure wealth. The spirit
of our fathers on the waves among the fisheries was one
cause of the envy that resulted in wars between England
and France and America. In 1775 Burke said there was
no climate that was not witness to their toil, and no sea but
what was vexed by their fisheries " among the tumbling
mountains of ice . . . beneath the Arctic circle, into the
opposite region of the polar cold, on the coast of Africa,
and along the coasts of Brazil." In the school of hardships,
the Americans had even become able to capture the ves-
sels of the British during the Revolution. American pri-
vateers, by prolonging the conflict on the waves, made suc-
cess possible.
No sooner had the war closed than American merchants,
seeking to be among the first to engage in direct trade with
the Far East, fitted out vessels to sail the Pacific.^ The
American flag first appeared at Canton, China, during the
" Canton War," in 1784, upon the Empress of China, which,
* There had been an early American trade with China, via Brit-
ish vessels, tea being received in return for ginseng, which was
purchased from New England Indians who received their pay in
money, calico and trinkets.
14 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [1-i
having been fitted out for the China trade by Daniel Parker
& Co., sailed from New York via Strait of Sunda, in Feb-
ruary of that year, laden with ginseng.' Samuel Shaw, the
supercargo of the Empress, was appointed consul to Canton
in 1786. At that time, John Lcdyard, of Connecticut, who
had accompanied Captain Cook around the world, and
now desired to engage in trade with the Northwest coast and
Canton,' was at Paris talking with Jefferson, at whose sug-
gestion he undertook to go, via Russia. Siberia and
Kamschatka, to explore the western part of America.*
" Diplomatic Correspondence of the U. S., 1783789. vol. vii.
Samuel Shaw to John Jay, May 19, 1785.
Major Shaw wrote a full account of his relations with China
and Batavia. [Josiah Quincy: Journals of Major Samuel Shaw . . .
with a life of the author. Boston. 1847. 360 pp.] Soon after
reaching China on his first voyage, he had occasion to cooperate
with the British, who had so recently been our enemies in war.
A British gunner, while firing a salute, killed a Chinaman. The
Chinese officials asked the delivery of the gunner, and, failing in
their demand, they finally seized Mr. Smith, the supercargo of the
British vessel. The Europeans unanimously agreed to make com-
mon cause, and the Americans joined. Shaw, at the request of
the British, ordered his vessel to Canton to help enforce the de-
mand for the release of the supercargo, and was the last to leave.
The British submitted, however, and agreed to deliver the gunner.
The harmony maintained between the Americans and the British
was particularly noticeable by the French, who had been our
recent allies. After his return to New York in May, 1785, Shaw
wrote John Jay, the United States Minister for Foreign Affairs,
an account of his voyage. He soon received a reply which stated
that Congress felt " a peculiar satisfaction in the successful issue
of the first effort of the citizens of .America to establish direct trade
with China." After he returned to Canton, in January, 1787, as the
first American consul to China, he wrote Jay a long letter in which
he said: "On the whole, it must be a satisfactory consideration
to every American, that his country can carry on its commerce
with China under advantages, if not in many respects superior, yet
in all cases equal, to those possessed by other people."
* Jared Sparks: Life of John Ledyard. Jefferson's Works, vol.
i, p. 68.
* On returning to America in 1782, he had induced Robert Mor-
ris to take an active interest in the northwest trade, and to begin
to fit out a vessel, but Morris finally abandoned the enterprise on
account of pecuniary embarrassments.
15] Pioneers in Trade and Discovery. 15
Failing to receive the permission of the Empress of Russia,
but still hoping to be " the first circumambulator of the
earth," with " only two shirts and yet more shirts than shil-
lings," he continued his journey eastward over Siberia until
he was arrested when within 200 miles of Kamschatka.
Jefferson already saw the commercial and political signifi-
cance of the region, and had received impressions which
later led to the expedition of Lewis and Clarke, who were
sent to determine whether the Missouri and Columbia
rivers would afiford a practicable route to the Pacific.
In 1787, the Canton (Capt. Thos. Truxton), the old Alli-
ance (Capt. John Reed), and no less than three other vessels
were engaged in the China trade. In the same year,
shrewd New England merchants, seeking new fields of
commerce between the Northwest coast and Canton, also
sent the Columbia (Captain Kendrick) and the sloop Lady
Washington (Captain Gray) to the vacant lands south of the
Straits of Fuca to trade, explore, buy lands of the natives
and build stores and forts. The captains were provided
with sea letters issued by the United States Government,
passports by Massachusetts, and letters of recommendation
from the Spanish plenipotentiary in the United States. The
vessels became separated in a storm, after rounding Cape
Horn (January, 1788). The Washington reached Nootka
sound on September 17, 1788, a few days before the
Columbia, and spent the winter there. In the following sum-
mer she sailed northward, and Gray saw islands which he
named Washington Islands in honor of George Washing-
Ion. They had already been called Prince Edward's Islands
by the British, and are now known as the Charlotte group.
Captain Kendrick afterward took command of the Wash-
ington to sail with Captain William Douglas, of the Gracc.^
The Columbia, by her appearance in the Pacific, " agitated
° Joseph Ingraham: Journal of the Voyage of the Brigantine
Hope, from Boston to the Northwest coast of America. 4 vols., in
MS. at Dept. of State.
16 American Rclatiois in the Pacific and Far East. [16
half of the Spanish dominion in America."" In May, 1788,
she entered the harbor of the island of Juan Fernandez for
repairs. Ambrose O'Higgins, the Captain-General of
Chile, arrested and cashiered the Spanish commandant who
gave the vessel friendly treatment. Lacroix, the viceroy
of Peru, sent a ship from Callao in pursuit, and requested
the authorities on the coasts of Chile, Peru and Mexico, to
seize any foreign vessel which should appear. Notwith-
standing the alertness of the Spanish oflficials toward the
south, the American vessels were not disturbed by the
Spanish authorities at Nootka.
The Columbia, after remaining at Nootka until October,
1789, carried furs to Canton, exchanged them for teas, com-
pleted the circumnavigation of the earth,' and in August,
1790, her return was celebrated at Boston with much en-
thusiasm." Captain Ingraham, the mate, brought with him
from the Sandwich Islands a native crown prince, Opye,
who became the centre of interest, and whose visit was the
beginning of our friendship with Hawaii.
Other American vessels had recently stopped at the
Sandwich Islands, and had not been favorably impressed
with the character of the natives." In the latter part of
1789 the Eleanor, an American armed trading vessel, com-
manded by Captain Metcalf, of New York, stopped en
* Since the royal ordinance of 1692, every foreign vessel in those
seas, without a license from Spain, had been treated as an enemy.
The fur traders in the North Pacific excited the apprehensions of
the Spanish Government.
' The Columbia was the first vessel to carry our flag around the
world. In 1789 tlierc were fifteen American vessels at Canton. The
number largely increased in a decade. According to the Canton
custom-house record, 20 ships and two brigs from the United
States visited that port from June 11, 1800, to April 27, 1801. For
the year ending June. 1802, there were 29 ships and 2 brigs. From
June, 1802, to January 9, 1803. there were 31 ships and i schooner.
[Pitkin: Statistical View, N. Y., 1817. p. 246, and Appendix
No. 2.]
*Thc Massachusetts, built for China trade, had sailed for Canton
on March 28, 1790. See Delano's " Voyages."
•John White: Voyage to the South Sea, Boston, 1823.
17] Pioneers in Trade and Discovery. 17
route to China. Natives stole a small boat in order to get
nails and iron, and Metcalf, a few days later, took revenge
by firing into a crowd, who had come in canoes
to trade, and killed many innocent persons.'". The Fair
American, commanded by Metcalf, after having been de-
tained at Nootka, arrived a few days later, and was captured
by natives, who proceeded to kill all on board except
Isaac Davis. The latter's life was saved by interposition
of one Ridler, the carpenter's mate of the Columbia, who
had remained at Hawaii. Davis and John Young, an Eng-
lishman, were detained, and finally became chiefs, and in-
structed natives in the use of firearms. The natives were
preparing 26,000 canoes to attack Captain Metcalf's brig,
a few miles away, while pretending to be trading, but the
Americans on the island exaggerated the power of Metcalf's
guns and obtained permission of the king to send a letter
requesting the captain to depart, but not stating what had
occurred. Six months later, Captain Douglas, in the
schooner Grace, arrived, and sent a letter requesting the de-
livery of the whites that remained, but failed to get them.
He left Young and James Cox in care of the king to over-
see the collection of sandalwood for the China market."
From a financial standpoint the voyage of the Columbia
was not a success, but the enterprising Bostonians were de-
termined not to neglect the " infant and lucrative China
trade." Among the first, after the return of the Columbia,
to reembark for the Pacific was Captain Joseph Ingraham.
'" Ingraham's Journal, vol. ii, p. 70, Greenhow: History of
Oregon and California (Boston, 1845), chap, x, p. 224.
" The sandalwood traffic soon became important, and was a
valuable source of revenue for the Hawaiian chiefs. Kamehameha
compelled the natives to go on long journeys to the interior in
search for sandalwood trees, and to hew the wood and bring it to
the coast where he exchanged it for guns and vessels, by means of
which, he made himself master of his own and then the surround-
ing islands. The wood was carried to China by the traders who
exchanged it for teas and silk. The supply in a few years became
much decreased.
18 Aiticrkan Relations in the PaeiHe and Far East. 1 18
At the Department of State " arc four interesting volumes
of an illustrated manuscript journal in which he has given
an account of his voyage and descriptions of the natives
wherever he found them. On September i6, 1790, taking
Opye with him, he accepted the command of the brigantine
//('/>t'. bade an aflfccting farewell to his native shores,'' and
again braved the perilous ocean, sailing via Cape Horn.
In April. 1791, he reached the Marquesas Islands, dis-
covered by Spain in 1595, and anchored a mile and a half
off the shore, where naked savages, men and women, came
swimming and in canoes, bringing a pig and cocoanuts.
Opye went on shore to buy water, of which the natives soon
brought a plentiful supply, likewise of wood, bananas, small
pigs, etc., which they exchanged for small nails. They had
little knowledge of iron, and showed much curiosity. They
became so bold in climbing the sides of the vessel that it
was found necessary to drive them away. They had, also,
a propensity for stealing, but immediately returned articles
when they were discovered. The females diverted the at-
tention of the sentinels from the frying pans and cooking
utensils, which they proceeded to appropriate. At night
they drew off and gave the crew a partial rest from their
intolerable noise; but at daylight they came again, "swim-
ming like a torrent," and bringing more wood and water.
•About 60 canoes with 600 persons, some with horse-palm
umbrellas, collected around the vessel. The male natives,
not being allowed to come on board, for fear they would
divert the crew from their work, became very troublesome.
The young men, notwithstanding the efforts of the older
ones to check them, swam under the bottom of the vessel,
and. with long poles, broke the cabin windows, and one
of them struck Ingraham with a stick of wood. They all
" They probably came into the possession of the United States
Government shortly before the settlement of the Oregon question.
"The Hope was soon followed by the Columbia, then the Han-
cock, the Jefferson — and also by the Margaret, of New York.
19] Pioneers in Trade and Discovery. 19
seemed sorry, however, when the boat w^as preparing to
leave.
No observations were made on shore. Opye, the only
one who landed, said the women crowded about him so
thickly that in his efforts to pay attention to them he could
see nothing else. The fact that many men were seen with
only one eye indicated that peace did not reign supreme.
On April 19, 1791, Ingraham, near latitude 8° 7' South
and longitude 140° West, unexpectedly found several
islands not indicated on the charts of the Spaniards or of
Cook. He named them Washington, Adams, Federal, Lin-
coln, Franklin, Hancock and Knox.'* He intended to go
on shore, but finding no convenient place to anchor, he
called together his men, and was greeted with cheers when
he announced that the islands were newly discovered and
belonged to the United States."
On May 20, Ingraham reached "Owhyhee " [Hawaii],
where a hundred trading canoes soon brought plenty of
hogs, pigs, fowls and potatoes. Proceeding to Mowee,
where 200 canoes soon collected, he received on board
Tianna and " Tommahammahan," who were at war with
Titierce and Tio. Feeling that the natives desired an op-
portunity to make an attack, he refused to go nearer shore
as requested by Tianna, who said it took the natives" breath
to bring hogs so far. Leaving Opye, he went farther along
the coast, and found three white men, recently left by an
American vessel, who warned him that the natives would
take the first opportunity to capture his vessel. After find-
ing it necessary to fire upon some of the natives, he saw
about '' 700 canoes and 20,000 fighting men " collecting
around him, and taking the whites with him he retired.
Pyamano, a son of Chief Titierce, remained on board, in-
tending to go to America; but Ingraham, not desiring to
" Captain Roberts, of Boston, in 1792, named some of them
Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison.
" When Ingraham reached Macao he learned that the French
had discovered four of the islands twenty days later.
20 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [20
carry away a g^reat chief, nor wanting to give the natives
more chance to lament that they had ever been discovered
by civiHzation. and. probably influenced by the arrival of a
canoe from the windward to announce a declaration of war,
discharged him at the next trading place.
On June i, the Hope sailed from the Sandwich Islands,
and on June 29 reached Washington Islands on the North-
west coast (Prince Edward's or Charlotte's isles) where re-
pairs were made, and water and wood obtained. On July 4,
the crew- killed a hog, dined on the shore, and drank to the
President's health. Sailing farther to the north to "Port
Ingraham," they were approached by women natives, who
came in canoes singing and offering to sell their foul
fish. Chief Cow agreed to have skins brought, and soon
other tribes sought to trade in fur. After reaching 54° 21'
N. and starting to return southward, the Hope met the
Columbia July 23, on its second voyage."' Going on board,
Ingraham received letters from Boston, and learned from
Captain Gray that the Spaniards had augmented their set-
tlement at Nootka and established another in the Straits of
Juan de Fuca. He was not willing to concede that Spaip
could claim the entire Northwest coast by right of dis-
covery. Contemplating the recent disturbance between
Spain and England, and the possibility of three other na-
tions contending for the territory claimed by each of these
powers, he was about to lay out the whole Northwest coast
and assign to each his lot, but decided to leave the question
for national assemblies to discuss when it should become a
matter of more serious consequence.
After more trading with the natives toward the south of the
Washington Islands (some of whom offered to go to " fight
for more skins "), the Hope, on September 2. sailed away,
and, on October 6, reached " Owhyhee," where Ingraham
"In June, 1791, the Columbia started on a second voyape under
the command of Captain Gray, who discovered the mouth of the
Columbia river, Riving to the United States an advantage in the
trade between China and the Northwest coast.
31] Pioneers in Trade and Discovery. 21
found the brig Hancock, of Boston, bound for Macaa.
While the natives were trading, the king's son again came
on board with the desire to go to America. Starting on Oc-
tober 12, the Hope reached China on November 27. At
Macao roads, Ingraham was informed by Captain R. D.
CooHdge (who had formerly been on the Washington, but
had become commander of the Grace after the death of
Douglas) that China, on account of being at war with Rus-
sia, prohibited fur ships from entering the port of Canton,
but he disposed of part of his furs there and left the others
to be sold by Captain John Canning, of the Nonsuch. Two
other American vessels arrived from the Northwest coast
in the early part of December. One was the brig Wash-
ington (Captain John Kendrick), which had been in Nootka
sound while Spain still held possession. The other was
the Snoiv Fairy (Captain William Rogers), recently the
property of Douglas.
Ingraham left Canton June 22, 1792, and in April sailed
from Macao to Nootka, where, on July 2, he and Gray
sent a joint letter to the Spanish commander. In Novem-
ber, after a twenty-two days' sail, he reached " Owhyhee,"
where his " Journal " suddenly ends.
The direct trade of the North Pacific between the Amer-
ican coasts and China soon grew in its importance, and
remained almost entirely in the hands of Americans until
1814. After 1784, when the Northwest Company was or-
ganized at Montreal, the latter took the place of New York
as the principal seat of the lake fur trade; but the North-
west and Hudson Bay companies became involved in dis-
putes with each other, which resulted to the advantage of
the Americans in the Pacific trade, which for twenty-five
years was carried almost exclusively by vessels from Bos-
ton. It finally declined on account of the scarcity and
high price of furs, caused by the competition of the Russians
who advanced southward." The American vessels usually
" R. J. Cleveland: Narrative of Voyages and Commercial En-
terprises, 1792-1818. 2 vols. Cambridge, 1843.
22 America}! Relations in the PaciHe and Far East. [22
started with valuable cargoes of West India productions
and British manufactured articles — many with knives, iron,
copper pans, and various trinkets for the natives — perhaps
gathered a few seal skins or butts of oil in the South Pacific
or obtained turtle at the Galapagos, sold a few articles at
Valparaiso, bartered with the natives of the Northwest
coast for furs, completed their cargo with sandalwood and
other articles at the Sandwich Islands, and exchanged every-
thing for teas, silks and nankins at Canton. On these voy-
ages the Americans used the Sandwich Islands as a prin-
cipal place of resort, but they also visited islands in all parts
of the Pacific." Their industry finally resulted in the settle-
ment of Astoria and the colonization of Oregon, and con-
tributed to the establishment of American influence along
the western coast of South America, in the islands of the
Pacific, and in the Far East.
The early occupation and enterprise of Americans in
the Pacific was not limited to the trade between the North-
west coast, Hawaii and China. Many were engaged in
whaling and sealing, and some in obtaining the pearl oyster
and iKchc-de-mer. In 1791 six ships from Nantucket, and
one from New Bedford, sailed for the Pacific to pursue the
sperm whale, which had fled from his old haunts in the
Atlantic." Notwithstanding the dangers and hardships in-
cident to the occupatien, the number of vessels engaged in
"They also furnished the Russian-American settlements with
European articles in exchange for furs. In 1809 Russia com-
plained of the " illicit " trade of American citizens on the North
Pacific coasts. Later, Count RomanzofF, the Russian Minister of
Foreign Affairs, at St. Petersburg, proposed to J. Q. Adams, the
American plenipotentiary, an arrangement allowing Americans to
supi)ly the Russian settlements on the Pacific with provisions and
manufactures, and transport the furs of the Russian Company to
Canton, under the condition that they abstain from all intercourse
with the natives of the Northwest coast. To this Mr. Adams ex-
plained that he could not agree. [Greenlimv: History of Oregon
and California, chapter xiv.]
'"Alexander Starbuck: History of the .\inerican Whale Fishery.
23] Pioneers in Trade and Discovery. 23
it rapidly increased and exceeded that of any other nation.'"
The thrilling excitement of chasing such gigantic game had
a tinge of the romantic, and made privations more easily
endured. " The blood more stirs to rouse a lion than to
start a hare." Sometimes there were exciting races be-
tween English and American vessels for the same whale,
and when the agility of the American sailor won by success-
fully throwing his ponderous harpoon, he was greeted with
repeated shouts of applause.''
The plan of getting seals in the South Seas for the China
trade was early undertaken. Mr. Edmund Fanning tells
us in his " Voyages Around the World," that in May. 1792,
the brig Betsey, under Captain Steele, and owned by Mr.
Nexsen, left New York upon such an expedition by way of
Cape Verde and Falkland islands, but it never reached
Canton. In 1797, Fanning, as commander of the Betsey,
sailed by the same route to the Pacific, and after visiting
Washington, Fanning and other islands, reached Macao
and Canton. He found living on Tinian Island Mr. Swain,
of Nantucket, and several others who had escaped from a
wrecked English vessel. Among them were the widow and
servant woman of the captain. On the route back to New
York he defeated a band of pirates.
In January, 1800, the Aspasia, with twenty-two guns,
was sent by New York gentlemen to explore and get seals
in the South Seas. She was commissioned by the United
States Government as a letter of marque. At Valparaiso
she was detained by Spanish officials, who suspected that
she was a British ship-of-war." She continued her voyage
to Canton and returned to New York, but part of her cargo
'"In June, 1795, and again in May. 1811, the British Parliament
passed an act offering premiums in order to encourage British
fisheries in the South Seas. The act also encouraged Americans
to reside in England except wlien on the whaling voyage. The
United States offered no bounty.
" See an article in the N. Am. Rev., Jan., 1834.
" Fanning's Voyages around the World, etc., 1792- 1832. Boston.
1833.
24 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [24
was lost by a wreck and tlie adventure resulted in no finan-
cial gain. The brig Union, under Captain Pendleton, left
New York on a similar voyage by way of Sydney, and to
the Fiji Islands, and in 1803, Delano, who had sailed to
China in the Persez'crance by way of Hawaii in 1799, went
directly across from Peru to Canton,"" stopping at Lobos
Islands and Wake Island.
A few Americans reached the Fiji Islands early in the
century. Charles Savage, reputed to be an honest sailor
belonging to the American brig Eliza, which was wrecked
in the Fijis in 1808, became a kind of " head man " at Bau,
the Fijian capital. His influence in the government prob-
ably was due to the disturbed condition of the islands and
the presence of several shipwrecked and runaway seamen,
and of twenty-six convicts who had escaped from New
South Wales in 1804.'* Firmly established at Bau, he de-
manded and received some of the " highest ladies of the
realm " for wives," but his children were all still-born, and
his hopes to establish white sway were wrecked. The
arrivals from New South Wales died out rapidly by fights
or irregular life in the hot climate." Savage was put to
death and eaten in March, 1814.
By the close of Jefiferson's administration American in-
terests in the Pacific were of sufficient importance to attract
the attention of the Government. In the spring of 181 2
President Madison gave Fanning a commission as com-
mander of an expedition of discovery, to consist of the ships
Volunteer and Hope, and to go to the southern hemisphere
and voyage around the world. Secretary Monroe furnished
him letters from European ambassadors and consuls rcc-
onmiending him to the kindness and protection of vessels
and officials of their nationality. When the expedition was
nearly ready, war with England was declared which i)re-
vented it from sailing.
Delano's Voyages. Boston. 1818. "Secmann. p. 406.
Capt. I. Erksinc: Western Pacific, p. 197.
Dillon: Discovery of the Fate of de la Pdrouse.
CHAPTER II.
OCCUPATION OF MADISON ISLAND IN THE
WAR OF 1812.
One of the most interesting American episodes in the
Pacific is the formal occupation of Madison Island by Cap-
tain David Porter in 1813, while he was engaged in pro-
tecting American whaling interests in that vicinity.
Before the declaration of war with England in 1812,
American whalemen on the coast of Peru often suffered
from the piratical acts of Peruvian privateers, who also cut
them out from Chile ports where they had gone to recruit.'
J. R. Poinsett, of South Carolina, was sent to remonstrate,
but when the Anglo-American war began, he found that
the corsairs, as a fresh pretext for plunder, claimed they
were allies of England.' Learning that an expedition sent
by the authorities of Lima had captured Concepcion and
Talcahuano, and that at the latter place a Limian armament
of two men-of-war and 1500 troops was detaining many
American vessels, he resolved to resort to stronger measures
than those of diplomacy. Joining the Chilean army, he
directed its movements until the enemy was driven from the
town and the whalemen released. Though Lima yielded to
muskets and cannon, her depredations did not entirely cease
until the arrival of Captain Porter in the United States
frigate Essex, the first United States ship-of-war to spread
her sails in the Pacific.
On October 6, 1812, Porter had received his orders for
'Alex. Starbuck: History of the American Whale Fishery.
" Porter: Journal of a Cruise in the Pacific, 1812-14. N. Y.,
1822.
■>.'(> Ayncricmi Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [2G
a lonor cruise. After reaching the South Atlantic, he had
learned that the people in Buenos Ayres were starving,
and unable to supply his wants, and that Montevideo was
invincible. He at once shaped his course for the Pacific,
and on March 15 landed at Valparaiso, where he was aston-
ished to learn that Chile had declared licr independence
from Spain, and that the viceroy of Peru had sent out
cruisers against American shipping.'
Porter's appearance in the Pacific was of great importance
to American whaling interests. He at once proceeded to
<lestroy unfriendly vessels, and to break uj) the British whale
fisheries ofif the coast of Chile and Peru. After capturing
British property worth two and a half million dollars, and
360 British seamen, whom he liberated on parole, he de-
cided to seek a place of safety where he could put his ship
in a condition to return home. and. at the same time, give
his men some amusement.
.Sailing to the group discovered by Ingraham in ijc)!. he
anchored at Madison Island (Nukuhiva, or Sir Henrv Mar-
tin's Island), which he proceeded to occu])y for the United
States, and to conquer and make them tributarx to the
Ignited States by the request and assistance of the friendly
tribes. He built h'ort Madison (4 guns) and a village which
he called Madisonville. The waters where he anchored,
he named Massachusetts bay. In taking formal occupa-
tion on November 10. 1813. Porter declared that the na-
tives by their own request, and in order to render secure
the United States claim to the island, were adopted into
the great American family; and that they, on their part,
had promised to give welcome hospitalilx and protection to
.American citizens who visited the islands, and also to en-
deavor to prevent subjects of Great Britain from coining
among them during the continuation of the War of 181 2.
In his declaration, which he read, he said: " Our rights
'Navy Dcpt. Tracts, vol. xiv. No. 22: Essex Insl. Tlist. Coll..
vol. X. Salem. 1870.
2?] Occupation of Madison Island in War of 1812. 27
to this island being founded on priority of discovery, con-
quest and possession, cannot be disputed . . . Influenced
by considerations of humanity, which promise speedy civi-
lization ... as well as by views of policy, which secure
to my country a fruitful and populous island, possessing
ever}' advantage of security and supplies for vessels, and
which, of all others, is the most happily situated, as respects
climate and local position, I do declare that I have in the
most solemn manner, under the American flag displayed at
Fort Madison, and in the presence of numerous witnesses,
taken possession of said island, called Madison Island, for
the use of the United States . . . : and that the act of tak-
ing possession was announced by seventeen guns. . . . And
that our claim to this island may not hereafter be disputed,
I have buried in a bottle, at the foot of the flagstaff in Fort
Madison, a copy of this instrument, together with several
pieces of money, the coin of the United States." ' This
deed was signed by Porter, nine United States naval officers
and others.
While on the island the American forces intervened to
secure peace between the natives, and joined the friendly
tribes in their wars against the Happahs.
On December 13. Porter sailed for \^alparaiso, leaving
Lieut. Gamble in command with four prize ships, twenty-
one marines and six prisoners. He reported that he had
completely broken up British navigation on the Pacific,
and injured her navigation to the extent of two and one-
half million dollars. In the following March, however,
after a desperate encounter " outside the port, watched by
thousands of witnesses from surrounding hills, he was com-
pelled to surrender to Commodore Hillyar, of the British
navy, who had recently arrived with the Phoebe and the
■* Capt. D. Porter: Journal of a Cruise to the Pacific in 1812-14.
N. Y.. 1822.
'" Poinsett, during the engagement, requested the Governor of
Valparaiso to protect the Essex, but his request was not granted.
He left the country soon after.
28 America)! Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [28
Cherub. He and part of his crew, on parole, were allowed
to sail for New York on the Essex, Junior. Several of the
crew of the Essex, who were left at Valparaiso, enlisted in
the " patriot " army at Santiago.
Gamble found his stay at Madison Island far from pleas-
ant. His life was rendered miserable by rains and squalls,
and by the character of his crew, some of whom were worth-
less and ready to desert at every opportunity. He was also
much troubled by the natives, who showed signs of attack
and soon began to kill the swine left by Porter. Threats
of devastation being insufficient to prevent theft by some of
the natives, he found it necessary to attack and chasten
them. After they had fled and the chiefs offered to replace
the swine, he asked an indemnity for his trouble and also
demanded the surrender of the thieves, whom the chiefs
claimed they could not apprehend, but finally closed the
affair by exacting a promise of future vigilance. Later,
when intertribal quarrels and wars were renewed, he suc-
cessfully restored tranquillity by intervention. Supplies be-
coming precarious, he sailed to other islands to barter iron
for swine and vegetables, and at almost every place he
landed the natives asked his aid in intertribal wars which
had arisen chiefly over fishery regulations or property.
But he had enough to engage his attention in watching and
punishing his own men, who went to sleep on watch, or
permitted the clandestine visits of female natives, or left
camp without permission or under pretence of washing their
clothes at a distant brook. Early in May, seven men on
deck defiantly refused to work, bound and imprisoned
Gamble and others, hoisted the English flag, spiked the
guns at the fort, took the powder and other materials and
set sail. Gamble again had reason to become alarmed at
the natives, who began to rejicat their thefts and finally
attacked the ships, massacring four midshipmen.
Burning one of his vessels, with seven men and a leaky
ship without a boat or anchor, he sailed to Owyhee
(Hawaii) for supplies and men. In June, after he had
29] Occupation of Madison Island in War of 1812. 29
started to return to Valparaiso, he was captured by the
British warship Cherub. Reaching Valparaiso (on Sep-
tember 23), where he was entertained by the American vice-
consul, Blanco, he heard the strange news that Wellington
had been sent to the United States with 20,000 troops and
created Emperor of North America ! He finally arrived at
New York in August, 181 5.
Though Madison Island was afterwards recommended as
a convenient location for a naval and supply station, the
United States never took any step toward occupation.
Porter published an account of his experience in the
Pacific, in which he described the natives and made numer-
ous references to the beauty and grace of the native women,
who roamed at pleasure and were promiscuous in their in-
tercourse with the sailors. The English Quarterly Reviezv
ridiculed him for occupying the island, and severely criti-
cised him for his voluptuous descriptions of the island
beauties, and for the freedom which he permitted between
them and the sailors, as well as for cruelty to the natives.
Porter, in reply, after stating that Ingraham's discovery of
1791 gave the United States a just claim to the island, re-
ferred to the license of the sailors under Captain Cook and
others, and to previous writers, who had described feasts
with native women. In defending himself from the charge
of cruelty, he presented the British record in the Pacific
on that score, and stated that men away from law and in
danger, must judge of the means of safety and act accord-
ing to circumstances. He declared that the safety of his
ships, prizes and men depended upon maintaining a posi-
tion on the island, and that it was necessary to conciliate
the natives by joining them against their enemies.
CHAPTER 111.
EARLY AMERICAN INTERESTS ON THE PACIFIC
COAST.
American interests on the Pacific coast increased with
the number of American ships saihng between that region
and China, though its poHtical importance for the United
States attracted Httle attention until 1803, when President
Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis and Wilham Clarke to
explore along the Missouri and trace some convenient
stream to the Pacific with a view of opening an inland trade
route.' Jefferson favored every reasonable facility and
patronage by the Government to encourage the trade of
United States citizens with that distant region.' In 1810
he considered that an early settlement on the western coast
would be a " great public acquisition," and looked forward
to the time " when its descendants should spread themselves
throughout the whole length of the coast." covering it with
free Americans, independent and self-governing. By invi-
tation, and the offer of government protection, he encour-
aged Astor to fit out a vessel with seed and provisions and
to send 120 persons (some by sea and others by the over-
land route) to the mouth of the Columbia, where in i8ti
they established the American settlement of Astoria.'
Astor had long been engaged in conmicrcc and trade
between the Northwest coast and China. For the pur-
pose of securing such a control of that trade as to lessen the
danger of rivalry by tlie Northwest Company, in 1810, at
' Lewis and Clarke: E.xpcclition. etc. Pliila., 1814.
' JcfTerson's Works, vol. vi. To John Jacob Astor, May 24, 1812.
* Washington Irving: Astf)ria.
31] Early American Interests on the Pacific Coast. 31
New York, he assisted in the organization of the Pacific
Fur Company with himself at its head. For clerks and
voyageurs he selected principally Canadians. Macdougal,
who was appointed to superintend the new enterprise, sailed
in the Tonqiiin in September, 1810. At Owyhee, in Feb-
ruary, 181 1, he made an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate
a treaty with Kamehameha, but he obtained supplies, and
also men, to engage in service on the coast. His settle-
ment at Astoria, near the mouth of the Columbia, was joined
in January, 1812, by the overland detachment of sixty men,
who had endured many hardships and dangers on the route.
On May 5, 1812, the Bearer arrived with more men from
the United States and with 36 Sandwich islanders. In Jan-
uary, 1813, the community, already embarrassed by the
destruction of the Tonquin and her crew by the Indians
near the entrance to the Straits of Fuca, was thrown into
gloom by the news that the United States had declared war
against Great Britain. On October 16 the Canadian man-
agers of the company entered into an agreement by w4iich
all the establishments, furs and stock were sold to the North-
west Company for $58,000. The captain of a British vessel,
which arrived soon after, hauled down the American flag,
replaced it by the British flag, and changed the name of
the place to Fort George. Astor, on hearing the news,
considered the sale disgraceful.*
In 1815 Monroe demanded the restitution of the post.
Two years later he sent the Ontario to establish a settle-
ment on the Columbia. When Castlereagh expressed
regret and a desire to avoid collision. Secretary Adams
wrote Rush, at London, that it had not been anticipated
that England would be disposed to start questions of title
with us on the shores of the South Sea, stating that she
would hardly find it useful or wise to resist every possibility
of extension to our national dominion.
The expansive designs of Russia in America were a
■•Greenhow: History of Oregon and California, chap. xiv.
32 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [32
source of some concern to officials of the United States Gov-
ernment. Prevost, the United States agent who had re-
ceived the surrender of Astoria by the British, in a letter
to Adams dated at Monterey, Noveniljcr ii, 1818, after
referring to the Russian settlements made in 1816 at the
Sandwich Islands and near the harbor of San Francisco,
said : " May we not infer views to the early possession of
this harbor, ultimately to the sovereignty of entire Cali-
fornia. Surely the growth of a race, scarcely emerged from
the savage state, on these shores is to be deprecated, and
should excite the jealousies of the United States and induce
her to preserve a station, which may serve as a barrier to
northern aggrandizement."
Floyd's Report ° in the House in January, 1821, estimat-
ing that there were already $8,000,000 of property owned
by the United States ni the Pacific, and calling attention to
Russia's menaces against Turkey, Persia, Japan, China and
Spanish America, and her plans to command the North
Pacific, urged the propriety of taking energetic steps to
guard our increasing interests on the Columbia, whose
valley. Benton thought, might soon become the granary
of China and Japan, who had not yet opened diplomatic
relations with us. It was suggested that settlement of the
country might be facilitated by the immigration of Chinese.
Though the friends of the report, in support of their views,
emphasized the importance of fisheries and trade with China,
and spoke of possible growth of the lumber trade, and of
agriculture, in the future, the members of the House gave
the subject little discussion and voted to table it. The
majority probably considered such an extension of the
Union chimerical. Tucker fof the opposition) of Virginia,
said necessarily the Rockies always would be an impassable
barrier between interests.
Russia had not only made establishments in California
and Hawaii, but threatened to enforce the Russian claim
• Rp. Com. 45, 16-2, Jan. 25, 1821.
33] Early American Interests on the Pacific Coast. 33
to make the Pacific a mare clausum north of 51° on the
American coast and 45° on the Asiatic coast. An edict of
Alexander, September 4, 1821, under pretext of preventing
smugghng, stated rules for limits of the navigation and
communication along the coast of East Siberia, the North-
west coast of America to 51°, the Aleutian, Kurile and other
islands, and prohibiting foreign vessels from coming nearer
than 100 Italian miles to these places, except in gales or
when in need of provisions, etc. President Monroe was
surprised at the Russian claim to 51°, etc., and Secretary
Adams, February 25, 1822, asked Poletica, the Russian
minister, to explain the Russian grounds of right,
Poletica, in a long reply, of February 28, denying that
Spain had ever had a right to claim north of 42°, said
51° was only a mean point between the Russian establish-
ment of New Archangel at 57° and the American colony
on the Columbia at 46°. In justification of the 100-mile
prohibition, he said that the foreign adventurers, nearly
all of whom were American citizens, b}^ their illicit trade
and irregular conduct, and by selling arms to natives of
Russian America, had been the source of pressing but un-
successful remonstrances from the time when Russia began
diplomatic correspondence with the United States, and
that coercion, though not conceived in a hostile spirit, or to
strike a blow at maritime interests of the United States, had
become a necessity."
Adams could not understand how Russia could claim
to 51° when she had only claimed to 55° in 1799. and was
persuaded that American citizens would remain unmolested
as heretofore in exercising their right to sell to the natives
of Northwest America. He had no proof that the trade
had been exercised in a spirit unfriendly to Russia. In his
reply of March 30, he said that the right of the United
States to navigate the seas near Behring, as well as else-
where, was a part of our independence, and that her ves-
Exec. Papers, 112, 7-r, vol. vi, Apr. 15, 1822.
34 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [3i
sels had exercised that right from the period of lier exist-
ence as a nation. In reply to Poletica's suggestion that
Russia had a right to exclude foreigners from the sea
north of 51° in America and 45° in Asia, Adams reminded
him that the distance between those two points was only
about 4000 miles.
Poletica, in a letter of (March 21) April 2, referred to eight
Russian settlements in latitude 48° and 49° (462 persons)
existing as late as 1789, and ventured to say that the great
width of the Pacific would not prevent Russia from making
it a closed sea, but he referred the matter to his govern-
ment.
After the protests of the L'nited States and Great Kritain,
Russia suspended her edict, and soon after Monroe's fam-
ous message of 1823, she granted the right of United States
citizens to fish along the coasts of Russian America, ex-
cept in the rivers and harbors; but, after 10 years, believing
that the privilege had been abused, she refused to renew
the agreement for allowing either fishing or trading.' Thus
was the way prepared for the future acquisition of Alaska
and the islands skirting the Behring sea.
The Americans, at an early day, also exercised consid-
erable influence along the Pacific coast of Spanish .\merica.
R. J. Cleveland, in his " Voyages," tells us that as early as
1802 our sailors were advocating self-government to the
people of Chile at Valparaiso. The revolution which
opened in Chile, in 1817, gave a stimulus to American
trade ' and induced the United States to keep a small squad-
ron on the west coast of Peru and Chile. With the eman-
cipation of all Spanish America from the colonial rule of
the mother country, Americans stopped more frequently
along the west coast of Mexico and California.
The growth of American conunerce and whaling interests
' Van Burcn's Mcs.sage of Dec, i8.vS.
' For an account of affairs on the coast of South Atnorica. 1817-20,
see " Voyages " of R. J. Cleveland, who undertook a voya,e:e under
tlx auspices of John Jacob Astor.
35] Early American Interests on the Paciiic Coast. 35
in the Pacific and the Far East, during the administration
of Monroe and J. Q. Adams, and the desire for ports essen-
tial to their protection, induced the Jackson administration,
in 1835, to seek for the acquisition of territory north of
37° that would include the bay of San Francisco, and to
undertake negotiations for purchase, but in vain. In De-
cember, 1 841, Upshur, Secretary of State under Tyler,
knowing that Americans were settling in California, and
considering that the increasing commerce of the United
States within the Gulf of California, and to San Francisco,
together with the weakness of the local authorities, rendered
it " proper that occasional countenance and protection
should be afiforded to American enterprise in that quarter,"
instructed Commander Thomas ap Catesby Jones to . . .
" examine bays and harbors in the interest of commerce and
science."
In May, on reaching Callao bay, Jones learned that a
strong French squadron had sailed from Valparaiso in
March, 1842. He strongly suspected that its purpose was
to colonize or occupy California, or the Sandwich Islands,
or the Washington Islands^ [a part of the Marquesas group].
His anxiety was increased by subsequent rumors and move-
ments. On September 5, having learned from the Mexican
papers that relations with the United States were strained,
and having heard the rumor that Mexico had ceded Cali-
fornia to Great Britain for $7,000,000, considered that he
would be justified by the Monroe doctrine in seizing Cali-
fornia in self-defence, thereby securing a prior claim of
conquest before Great Britain could obtain a claim by occu-
pation. Sailing to Monterey on October 19, acting on his
own authority, he took possession and ran up the United
States flag, but on the next day he restored the Mexican
standard.
Though Secretary Webster disavowed the exploit of
* Discovered by Captain Ingraham in 1791 and occupied by Cap-
tain Porter in 1813. Occupied by the French in 1842.
3G .imcricaii Relations in the Pacific and I'ar East. l;U!
Jones, the United States Government continued to contem-
plate the acquisition of the port of San Francisco by peace-
able cession, and finally occupied it in the interests of civi-
lization and future security, oi)ening opportunities for
American protective influence in Mexico, and j^iving a stim-
ulus to communication with the ( )rient and Panama by lines
of dcean steamers.
CHAPTER IV.
EARLY RELATIONS OF WHALERS AND
TRADERS WITH THE NATIVES.
The islands of the Pacific have often been the scenes of
thrilHng disaster, romantic adventure, unbridled license,
conflict, mutiny, treachery, and bloodshed. Along the track
of the early whalers and traders, who carried with them the
vices as well as the virtues of a higher civilization, were
occasional shipAvrecks, horrible massacres, and shocking
indecencies. In cases of collision wath the natives, the
latter were not always the first offenders. Among the dar-
ing whaling captains, many of whom were scientific navi-
gators, some were unprincipled, severe and indiscreet, and
others were sometimes unable to control a crew so far re-
moved from the arm of civil law.^
The crews were a motley collection of Indians, runaway
slaves, renegade tars from the British navy, Irish, Dutch,
and Hawaiians, as well as the shrewd natives of Massachu-
setts. The majority, like " Long Tom Coffin," were brave,
hardy, intelligent sons of toil from New England's scant
soil, who, by the offers of a share of the cargo, were induced
to leave home and friends for a three-years' voyage, and to
become alert and vigilant in their business. Sometimes a
youth, who had worn out the forbearance of friends and
tutors, left the counting-room or college for the novelty
of an adventurous life on the broad ocean, where bones
were sometimes broken and lives lost in rough contests with
the mammoth spouting inhabitants of the deep.
' Cheever: Island World of the Pacific. C. S. Stewart: A
Visit to the South Seas in the U. S. Vincennes, 1829-30. N. Y.,
1831. J. N. Reynolds' Address, 1836.
38 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [38
Broils and mutinies occurred, but were usually put down.
That, in 1823, on board the Clobe, owned by a Nantucket
firm, is the worst recorded.'
With Thomas Worth, commander, and twenty others,
it left Edgarton December 20, 1822, sailed via Cape Horn
and Hawaii to Japan seas, from which it returned to Hawaii
with 550 barrels of oil. The crew had complained among
themselves as to the irregularity of the meat supply. At
Hawaii, six men deserted, and were replaced by five others,
after which the vessel cruised toward Fanning's Island.
The officers found frequent occasion to reprimand the new
members, and caused one to be severely flogged. In Jan-
uary, 1824, one Comstock platmed a mutiny and murdered
the captain and mates. He ordered the third mate to be
thrown overboard alive, and had his hands chopped off
when he attempted to hold the ship. He then directed the
ship via Kingsmill and Marshall's Island to the Mulgravc
Islands, where he proposed to form a settlement. Here
he joined a gang of natives, and, being suspected of treach-
ery, was shot by Payne, one of his fellow-mutineers. Smith
and six others, fearing Payne, escaped with the Globe to
Valparaiso, where they were arrested by United States Con-
sul Michael Hogan and sent to Nantucket. Payne, who,
with nine others had been left at the Mulgraves, went into
a paroxysm of rage when the absence of the vessel was dis-
covered, but soon drowned his trouble by taking a native
wife whom he had brought from another island, and his
example was followed by others, who seemed to have had
no fear of the natives. One morning, Payne, awakening
and discovering that his wife was gone, grabbed muskets
and started in search, found her, shot at her. flogged her
severely, and put her in irons. His severities irritated the
natives, who soon began to steal and to resist the restoration
of articles. Probably because they were jealous of the
' Wni. Lay and C. M. Husscy: Narrative of a Mutiny on Bt)ard
tin- Globe. New London, 1828.
39] Early Relations of Whalers and Traders. 39
chastity of their wives, the natives finally murdered all the
whites except two, Lay and Hussey, who were saved only
by the interposition of the natives, and were rescued in
December, 1825, by Lieutenant Hiram Paulding, of the
United States naval vessel Dolphin, which had made search
by order of Secretary of the Navy.^
At Onavoora, in the Hawaiian group, which w^as a ren-
dezvous for whale ships," especially from January to xA.pril,
many seamen, freed from a long confinement on board their
vessels, often became so insubordinate and licentious that
the captains were unable to restrict their propensities. In
some cases they threatened a riot unless the chiefs and mis-
sionaries should acquiesce in their demand for the repeal of
the restrictions that deprived them of the society of females."
Even some of the crew of the United States ship Dolphin,
in 1826, joined in opposition to missionaries. Deserters
were often secreted by the natives, and, in many cases, only
to obtain the large rewards which captains offered for their
return.
The Secretary of the Navy, seeing the extensive interests
of the United States in every part of the Pacific, and having
knowledge of the difficulties which not infrequently oc-
curred in the neighborhood of many of the islands, con-
sidered the occasional presence of a public force very im-
portant. During the South American revolt, the duties of
the small squadron on the west coast of Chile and Peru,
where American commerce was in danger from Spanish ves-
^ Paulding: Cruise of the Dolphin.
* Honolulu became a depot for fresh supplies, repairs, and the
temporary storage of whale oil. As early as 1823, sometimes forty
whaling vessels could be seen there on the same day. The im-
portance of the islands was recognized by the United States Gov-
ernment on September 19, 1820, when Secretary Monroe appointed
John C. Jones as " Agent for Commerce and Seamen."
° In 1825 the chiefs of Hawaii issued a proclamation against
women visiting vessels for immoral purposes, and crews tried to
get missionaries to have it revoked. Lieutenant Percival arrived
on the Dolphin — protested against the decree and by threats in-
duced the chiefs to rescind it.
40 Amvrkan Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [iO
sels. liad prevented it from visitinj;- the Society and Sand-
wich Islands, etc. In 1825-6, the unsettled condition of the
South American governments and the possibility that many
from the former navy of Peru and Chile would resort to
piracy, still exposed our commerce to dangers which
seemed to require a " competent naval force " on the coast
from Cape Horn to California." The need of a passage
through the Isthmus of Panama was felt/ and in 1826, Cap-
tain Thomas ap Catesby Jones was ordered to go to the
Hawaiian Islands to protect commerce, to relieve the islands
of American seamen who had improperly deserted from
whalers, to arrange to prevent desertions in the future, and
to secure debts due American citizens. He induced the
sailors there to join ships in need of their services, and pro-
ceeded to negotiate ' a treaty with the king (December 23,
1826) by which the latter agreed to permit trade, to aid
wrecked vessels, to assist in preventing desertions, and. in
time of war, to protect United States ships and citizens, in
the Hawaiian Islands, against all our enemies." He found
that the British consul and influential foreigners and ship-
masters were against the missionaries.*"
American commerce in the Pacific was at this time aug-
menting very rapidly. In 1826 there were 2000 seamen at
Honolulu alone, and, for their protection, the Secretary of
the Navy, in December, 1827, recommended that six ves-
sels be kept in commission in the Pacific." By 1828 there
was no longer any fear of our commerce being molested by
.Spanish ships, and the Navy Department hoped that our
armed vessels might frequently visit the Society, Sandwich
and other islands most frequented by our merchant ships.
' Rp. Secy, of Navy, Dec, 1826.
' H. Res., Dec, 1825. Naval Com. Rp., Jan.. 1826.
" Ruschenberger: Voyage Arouiul tlic World, 1836-37, cliap-
ter iv.
"Though thi.s treaty, or convention was never ratified l)y the
United States it continued to be a tacit understanding.
" Rev. J. M. Alexander: Islands of the Pacific, chap, vii
" Rp. Secy, of Navy, Dec. i, 1827.
41] Early Relations of Whalers and Traders. 11
In 1829 it was estimated that in one year Hawaii was vis-
ited by 100 American vessels with cargoes valued at $5,000,-
000. American merchants were seeking to increase trade
with the Orient, and to secure a greater protection from the
American Government.
In 1829 Captain Finch, with the United States ship Vin-
cennes, was sent by the American Government to endeavor
to improve our relations in the Pacific/' He visited
Nukuhiva [of the Washington Islands], and, through Wil-
Ham Morrison, as an interpreter, who was collecting san-
dalwood there, endeavored to persuade the chiefs to stop
the civil wars which arose from tribal jealousies, and often
from some mere petty theft, insult or misunderstanding.
He explained that our purpose was good-will and peace,
and that our vessels fought only those who ill-treated our
defenceless trading vessels.'''
Passing on to Tahiti, where natives were less rude and
naked than the Nukuhivans, he saw several white persons,
attended a mission church, and found that since 1821 the
island had been governed by a code of laws (and penalties)
including trial by jury. Finding the seventeen-year-old
Queen Pamare I. at work (September i, 1829), he alluded
to the recent conduct of herself and the regent toward some
deserters from an American whaler, and, after the diplo-
matic attempt of the regent to screen herself and the queen,
he pleasantly dismissed the subject in a manner calculated
to prevent a recurrence of such conduct. Several secondary
chiefs made short speeches expressing pleasure as to the
purpose and the manner of the visit, and the queen sent a
letter to President Jackson, saying: " Continue to sail
your vessels without suspicion. Our harbors are good and
our refreshments abundant."
" C. S. Stewart: A Visit to the South Seas.
" In his reports. Finch said that for the convenience of the
United States the situation of Nukuhiva was more convenient than
Oahu or the Society Islands — unless a canal should be cut through
the Isthmus.
42 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [42
Conditions at Hawaii caused the missionaries to welcome
the arrival of the Vincenncs and Captain Finch, as well as
Chaplain C. S. Stewart, who had been a missionary there in
1822-5. Unfortunately, the merchants and the missionaries
were at loggerheads, the missionaries saying that Ameri-
cans, and other foreigners, had been guilty of bad conduct
on the islands, and had opposed all efforts of the religious
teachers, and that on the slightest pretext the foreign
ofificials threatened vengeance upon the " timid and peace-
loving rulers," who had accepted the decalogue as their
only code of laws. On the other hand, the foreign resi-
dents (merchants) complained that the government was
controlled by the missionaries, and was unsatisfactory.
Finch saw at Oahu many indications of irregularities in
commerce, severity to crews, and bad effects of desertions.
Consul Jones, speaking (October 30, 1829) of the growing
importance of the Sandwich Islands to the increasing
American trades, said there should be semi-annual visits
of United States war vessels to reduce desertions and muti-
nies, and to punish the guilty.
At a reception given by King Kanikeaouli, Captain
Finch presented him with maps and books, and read him
a friendly message from the President,'* assuring him that
the United States desired to preserve his sovereign rights,
and sent war vessels for protection only where native gov-
ernments failed to protect. Capt. Finch advised him to pre-
vent the secretion of deserters, to liquidate his debts, to
cease competing with private individuals in the tavern
business, to spend his time usefully, to learn English, and
to hold semi-annual meetings of his chiefs to revise state
affairs. He stated that Ignited States citizens violating the
laws should be censured.
American merchants and traders, residing at Oahu. pro-
tested against communication with the king by the Secre-
tary of the Navy instead of through the regular channels
'* Laura Fish Judd: Honolulu, etc.. N. Y., 1880.
43] Early Relations of IVhalers and Traders. 43
of the State Department. They denied that American citi-
zens had been guilty of bad conduct on the island, declared
that the United States would have no cognizance of offences
committed beyond the limits of its jurisdiction, and insinu-
ated that the Vincennes had done nothing but aid in sad-
dling a religion on the " ignorant and unsuspecting
islanders."
The king wrote to President Jackson (November 23, 1829)
thanking him for the maps and globes and hoping for per-
fect agreement. The chiefs, in a conference with Finch,
acknowledged that they owed American merchants $50,000
and pledged themselves to pay it in nine months."
During the next few years there were still other sources
of dispute at Hawaii. The king, who had charged no tax
or rent to foreigners, feared that by leasing land he would
run the risk of losing control over the islands, and claimed
the right to prevent American citizens from selling or other-
wise transferring their houses, stating that they reverted
to him when they passed from the original owner. In
1836 Commodore E. P. Kennedy, of the United States ship
Peacock, opened negotiations with the king as to subjects of
dispute, but no agreement was reached."
Captain Benjamin Morrell, of the Antarctic, who sailed
from New York September, 1829, leaving his wife at
Manila (with the wife of an English merchant), in April,
1830, started on a trip to the Fijis, and has left us an inter-
esting narrative of his relations with the natives of Williams
(c. 5° N., 153° E.), Monteverdeson's, Massacre and Bergh's
Islands, and of islands discovered by him north and east of
New Guinea. At Williams Island, while the girls were bring-
ing him wreaths of wild flowers and receiving beads, other
natives were lurking in the bushes ready for a treacherous
attack. At the Monteverdeson's Islands, the natives
"Stewart: Visit to South Seas. vol. ii, p. 212.
'* Ruschenbcrger: Voyage Around the World. 1836-37, pp. 498-
502.
44 American Relations in the Paeifie and Far East. [44
brought cocoanuts and bread fruit, and those who wore
clothes (the married) stripped it all off to trade for old knives
and beads, but some were preparing to make an attack in
canoes, and Morrell said he left to prevent slaughtering
them. At the Massacre Islands Morrell made a treaty of
amity and commerce with King Nero, but soon after begin-
ning to erect a house and plant garden seeds, he saw signs
of treachery, thieving and dissimulation, and later, sixteen
of his men were killed while making a desperate defence.
The natives suffered a heavier loss, and Morrell, after going
to Manila for more men, returned in September to admin-
ister a wholesale chastisement. With " eloquent cannon,"
he repulsed a flotilla of the natives, and then, after quieting
those of the excited crew who wanted to depopulate the
island, he purchased with cutlery a small island (Wallace's)
and landed seventy men to cure beche-de-mer. On Sep-
tember 1 8, he repulsed several hundred yelling natives that
invaded the island, but being still harassed from time to
time, he did not wait to complete his cargo, but burned his
houses and bade adieu to the crowds of inhospitable
islanders who had eaten the whites they had killed, and had
apparently never suffered any bad effects. x\fter visiting
other islands north and east of New Guinea, where he ob-
tained two natives, Morrell returned to New York via
Manila. Singapore and the Cape of Good Hope, and in
1832 published an account of his voyages, claimed that he
had discovered a group of islands where a great opportunity
was waiting for the advance of enterprise, and encouraged
the fitting out of a good vessel with a crew of young men."
Ill March, 1834. T. J. Jacobs, aged 16, and just out of
college, joined a small trading expedition to the Pacific in
the clipper Martj^aret Oakley, of which Morrell was captain.
The expedition proved to be principally one of adventure,
exploration and romance in the region of Papua (New
" Capt. Btnj. Morrell: NaVrativi- ol Four Voyages. 1821-,^,
N. Y., 1832.
45] Early Relations of JVhalers and Traders. 4"^
Guinea), Bidera (New Britain) and the picturesque Admir-
alty Islands. Trade was opened with well-armed savages,
beads and pictures were given to the girls and young women
who came to the vessel in canoes, and interest was taken in
watching the natives in their love-making and their daily
sea-bath. Some of the crew would have been willing to
remain in this rural, romantic land of paradise, whose sim-
ple-hearted people sometimes besought them not to go.
Jacobs, whom the prince and several women tried to induce
to marry and settle on their island, wrote : " I felt strongly
tempted to embark forthwith, in company with several ship-
mates, for the uninhabited island of Garone, in the Morrell
group, and colonize the beautiful bay. At present it was
impracticable; but at another time the captain intended to
return with a party of young men and women from the
United States for that purpose." In 1844 he was still con-
templating a trading and colonizing expedition to that
quarter, which he considered to be " exceedingly inviting."
The Oakley, during her voyage, reached the vicinity of Nor-
folk Island, which had been uninhabited when visited by
Captain Cook, in 1774, but was now a penal colony for life
convicts — for those of a worse class than were banished to
Sydney (Botany Bay). She then sailed through the Sulu
straits and traded at Sulu harbor, passed the mouth of
Manila bay and exchanged cargo below Canton. Morrell.
stating that the romance of the voyage was ended, dismissed
many of the crew and started to return to New York, but
probably engaged in some enterprise in the South Seas."
Many Americans suffered shipwreck, privation and death
in the Fijis. About 1827, the Ocno of Nantucket, was ship-
wrecked there, and most of the crew were massacred. In
T830 an English vessel brought news that a young lad,
whose widowed mother lived at Nantucket, was still alive
on one of the islands. Captain Cofifin and part of the crew
"T. J. Jacobs: Scenes, Incidents and Adventures in the Pa-
cific Ocean. N. Y., 1844.
46 American Relations in the Pacific and Far Ilast. [46
of the Awaskonks were nuirdered on the islands a short
time later, and the brig Fawn, of Salem, Massachusetts, was
lost there in 1830. In the same year the Glide, owned by
Joseph Peabody, of Salem, struck a rock and sprung- a leak,
and after going to Manila for repairs, returned to trade
and soon found it necessary to retaliate on natives by driv-
ing them to the mountains and destroying some of their
canoes.'" The king seemed friendly, and rebuilt drying
houses destroyed by his hostile natives, but after his retire-
ment to his towai, thirty miles in the interior, the Glide
found it convenient to leave, and was wrecked near by in a
storm. A chief claimed the wreck, and the natives were
soon laden with plunder. The officers and crew seemed to
enjoy the life on the island, amidst bounteous fruit, festival
and entertainment. They (16) were finally carried by the
Harriet (which arrived from New York May 22, 1831) to
Wallis Island, which they said had a beautiful climate, plen-
tiful fruits and hospitable natives. Arriving soon after at
Oahu, where American missions had been established since
1820. some of them, reflecting that missions accomplished
more good than warriors " armed to the teeth," stated that
the Fijians could be improved like the Hawaiians and
Samoans.'"
In many instances unfortunate seamen were held as cap-
tives by the islanders. In 1833, ^- ^- Jo)'- o^ Nantucket,
learned thai there were white prisoners on the Tonga and
also on the Navigators' Islands. On July 30. 1830. twenty-
two young men. excited with the hope of seeing distant
regions and bettering their fortunes from the treasures
of the deep, left New Bedford in the Monitor, under com-
'• When the Glide (in November, 1830) stopped at Overlau. of tlic
Fijis, David Whelpy, who had been an American chieftain there
.since descrtinR a whale ship from Nantucket several years before.
was on friendly terms with the King of Ban. and seemed to have
great influence over the natives.
" W. G. Dix and James Oliver: Wreck of the Glide, witii Recol-
lections of Fiji and Wallis Island. N. Y., 1848.
47] Early Relations of IVhalcrs and Traders. 47
mand of Captain E. C. Barnard. They rounded the Cape
of Good Hope and started for one of the Ladrones, but
after much bad weather, their vessel struck on a coral reef
oflf Pelew Islands, nearly looo miles east of the Philippines,
and was lost. The survivors were detained by the natives,
and through the influence of an Englishman, who had de-
serted his vessel twenty years before, and was now a kind of
chief, they lived a life of ease and plenty for six months;
but tiring of the place, they escaped to North's Island,
where they were attacked. Captain Barnard and one other
returned to New York to tell the story of their adventure.
The news of the capture and plunder of the Friendship,
of Salem, Massachusetts, at Quallah Battoo on the coast
of Sumatra (where she was engaged in the pepper trade)
on February 9, 183 1, induced the United States Govern-
ment to take prompt action for securing better protection
for American sailors and commerce along the coasts and on
the islands of the Far East."' The United States frigate
Potomac was immediately sent to investigate, and being
able to obtain no satisfactory negotiations, proceeded to
retaliate by attacking the town. The American troops
silently disembarked after midnight, firing soon began, and
notwithstanding the hard fighting of the whooping natives,
in which even women participated, the Malays were defeated
and the American colors in a few hours waved over their
forts." Captain Downs, in making peace, informed the na-
tives that if they perpetrated any more outrages they would
be punished again. J. N. Reynolds, who went with the
expedition, urged that a few instances of prompt retaliation
would have a good effect by impressing nations with our
power. Sailing home via Oahu, he learned from a letter of
Consul J. C. Jones to Captain Downs, that persons from
nearly all the whalers caused trouble to the captains by at-
'* President Jackson's Message, Dec. 6, 1831.
^Francis Warriner: Cruise of the U. S. Frigate Potomac round
the World, 1831-34, N. Y.. 1835. J. N. Reynolds: Voyage of the
Potomac, 1831-34, N. Y., 1835.
48 American Relations in flic Pacific and Far East. [48
tempts at mutiny or desertion, and afterwards became out-
laws on shore. He believed that some of the causes of
abuse in the whale fleets could be reached only by the strong
arm of the United States Government, and advocated that,
besides regular visits of war vessels, the number of consuls
should be increased and that they should receive regular
salaries.""
(Observing our increasing interests at Valparaiso and
northward, and looking westward to the new and extensive
island world, Reynolds said the vast Pacific was, by force of
events, becoming an ocean in which the Americans were
immediately interested, and would probably be the theatre
of our future sea fights. He urged the necessity of a gov-
ernment exploring expedition to the South Seas, greater
protection to trade, and the establishment of safe harbors.
Soon after the dispatch of the Potomac to Sumatra, the
Jackson administraiion, in view of the fact that the United
States had no colonial establishments, felt the necessity of
securing ports in the vicinity of Borneo, Siam and Japan, at
which American vessels might always be received and pro-
tected, and sent Edmund Roberts with instructions (1832)
to negotiate for treaties for the safety of seamen and com-
merce."* Soon the project for a United States exploring
expedition to the Pacific, proposed long before, was re-
vived, and the Government was finally induced to under-
take it.
** The Potomac, stopping at the Galapagos group, carried the news
to J. Vilomil, a native of Louisiana, that he had been appointed
consul at Guayaquil but he could not be induced to accept it.
See page 60.
"' I Sp. M., 52.
CHAPTER V.
THE UNITED STATES EXPLORING EXPEDI-
TION/ 1839-43.
During the first half century of her existence, though
htr vessels sailed around the globe, and European powers
were planting colonies and making explorations on far-ofT
shores, the United States did not adopt any systematic
effort to obtain geographical knowledge in the Pacific
where American enterprise and commerce had been extend-
ing so rapidly. It was a period of internal development;
but the importance of pointing out harbors and paths for
seamen in the Pacific was gradually learned from the school
of experience.
From the earliest times the desire to secure a lucrative
trade was not the only motive which induced men to sail
on long journeys to the distant seas. Some sought ad-
venture and romance, and others were urged by the desire
to discover new fields of activity. In the spring of 1812,
President Madison took steps to aid an expedition under
Captain Edward Fanning to make explorations in the South
Seas and voyage around the world, but the enterprise was
abandoned on account of the opening of the war with Eng-
land." In September, 181 7, the Sea Fox sailed from New
York to the New South Shetlands and Palmer's Land.'
'Charles Wilkes: The U. S. Exploring Expedition. 5 vols.
Phila., 1845. [Subsequently, eleven additional volumes were pub-
lished.]
^ H. Doc. 57, 26-1, vol. ii.
' Captain Briscoe, of London, in 1832, observed an island 67° 15'
south latitude, 69° 29' west longitude, which he took possession
of in the name of William IV. and called Adelaide Island, in
honor of the English queen. Commenting on this act, Captain
4
50 American Relations in the Paeitie and Far East. [.")0
In 1822 Captain Benjamin MorrcU sailed to the Antarctic
seas in the IVasp. Reaching 70° 14', he resolved to make
an appeal to the United States Government for countenance
and assistance to enable him to go farther. " To the onlv
free nation on the earth," said he, " should belong the
glory of exploring a spot of the globe which is the ne plus
ultra of latitude." ' Fanning was confident that vessels
could reach the South Pole, and in 1829-30 he was in charge
of the brigs SerapJi and Annawan on an " infant expedition "
to the South Seas.'
In 1826, John N. Reynolds, a native of Ohio, and a con-
gressman (who went with the Annawan expedition as far
as the west coast of South America), had proposed the pro-
ject of a Pacific and Polar expedition under the auspices
of the Government." His idea was seconded by citizens of
Xantucket and other New England seaports, and by the
legislatures of seven States. The Maryland House of Dele-
gates, mentioning the enterprise of other nations in ac-
quiring geographical knowledge, extending their influ-
ence, and opening new channels of commerce, asserted
that the United States, after its success in the stu-
Morrell said: " But these lands were visited fifteen years ago by
our sealers and taken possession of in the name of our sovereign,
the people; and when a true record shall be made . . . the name
')f .\delaide Island must be changed .... We have a long run-
ning, unsettled account in this matter of giving names to places,
with some of our neighbors, which we may as well begin to have
posted up, for the purpose of preventing future disputes. . . . Our
hardy seamen feel able even to cast anchor on that point where all
the meridians terminate, where our flag may be unfurled and left
to wave." [J. N. Reynolds' .Xcidress, 1836.!
* Capt. Bcnj. Morrcll: A Narrative of Four Voyages to the
South Sea, etc., 1822-31, N. Y., 1832.
° Edward Fanning: Voyages Around the World, etc., 1792- 1832.
* During the summer of 1828 Reynolds had obtained data from
whaling captains of New London, Newport, Nantucket, etc., and
from their log-books, showing that 200 .'\merican vessels were en-
gaged in whaling and seal fisheries, capturing about 8000 whales
each year, and that our enterprising seamen had often discovered
rocks, reefs, .and islands, and in many cases had given valuable in-
formation to European chart makers.
31] The U. S. Exploring Expedition. 51
pendous experiment of self-government in politics, with its
increasing population and commercial relations and interest
coextensive with the civilized world, could allford to enter
into the " interesting and extensive field for enterprise in
the Southern hemisphere," and offered a resolution that
" a polar expedition could scarcely fail in adding something
to the general stock of national wealth and knowledge,
and to the honor and glory of the United States." ' Other
petitions or memorials urged that the American industry in
the Pacific having increased the wealth of our country, and
furnished a nursery for bold and hardy seamen, as well as
a source of employment and human comforts, had made in-
tercourse with the Pacific a matter of public interest and
should be encouraged by the survey of islands and coasts.'
In January and February, 1828, the subject was brought
before Congress by executive documents, and on May 21
a resolution of the House requested the President to send
one or more small vessels to the Pacific and South Seas
to examine coasts, islands and reefs, and ascertain their
location. The Secretary of the Navy selected the Peacoek,
and in November, 1828, suggested the purchase of another
vessel and the selection of instruments and scientific men.
In February, 1829, the House still urged the expedition,
and the Secretary of the Navy, in a document sent to that
body, stated that the object was to examine islands and
coasts, " both known and unknown," as far south as cir-
cvmistances, safety and prudence would permit explora-
tions, and that an additional appropriation would be
needed."
The Senate, to which the House resolution had never
been submitted, feeling that the expedition would be ex-
pensive and was related to the foreign policy, favored delay
and investigation, and hoped that the Secretary of the Navy
H. Exec. Doc. 88, 20-1, vol. iii. Jan. 22. 1828.
H. Exec. Docs. 179 and 201, 20-1, vol. v. Feb. and March. 1828.
Sen. Exec. Doc. 77. 20-2. Feb. 16, 1829.
o2 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [o2
would never again feel jnstified to act upon the resolution
of the House alone. The Senate committee, considering the
wide unsettled and unexplored regions at home, saw noth-
ing in the condition of the United States to recommend
distant voyages of exploration, and feared that the discov-
ery of countless islands or new continents might result in
the evils of adventure, visionary hopes and large emigra-
tion, tending to urge us " to plant the American standard
on soil discovered by American enterprise," and, perhaps,
to establish distant and expensive colonies, " which could
only be defended at an expense not to be estimated, and
which could not be taken under the protection of the
United States without an abandonment of the fundamental
principles of our policy, and a departure from those wise
and prudent maxims which have hitherto restrained us from
forming unnecessary connexions abroad."
The majority of the committee thought that before ven-
turing upon a premature expedition to distant seas, where
even to survey the 200 known islands would be a large
undertaking, the Government should make accurate sur-
veys of our coasts. Though they held that the opening of
new sources to commerce, as well as agriculture, might
safely be left to the enterprise and instinctive sagacity of
individuals, they favored a small expedition to make surveys
in the track of our vessels in the Pacific.'"
After sailing to the Pacific and circumnavigating the
globe, Reynolds returned to the United States in 1834, and~
prepared to renew his project in Congress. Collecting in-
formation which he had received from the whalers," he
proposed exploration on both sides of the equator from
South America to Asia, and southward beyond previous dis-
coveries. (Captain Cook had been stopped by ice at 68°
south latitude, but Captain Palmer and other Americans had
■" Sen. Rp. 94, 20-2. Feb. 23, 1829. Mrs. A. E. Carroll, on the
" First American Exploring Expedition," in Harper's Mag., vol.
xliv, Dec, 1871.
" Exec. Doc. 105, 23-2, Jan. 24. 1835.
53] The U. S. Exploring Expedition. 53
gone beyond that in search of furs and seals.) J. Q. Adams
led the House in favor of the expedition, and an act of Con-
gress, May 14, 1835, authorized it. Many thought the
expedition should be scientific, and that it might throw
some light on the source of the American aborigines. Some
opposed the enterprise on the ground that it was an eastern
measure, and a visionary one.'" Hawes, of Kentucky (May
5, 1836) compared it to the establishment of light-houses in
the skies, and said, if it passed, he expected a proposition
for a voyage to the moon next. Others urged that it was
for the general interest. Though Jackson favored the ex-
pedition, his Secretary of the Navy, Dickerson, did not,
and during the three years of preparation Russia sent out
three expeditions.
Reynolds continued to urge that the United States should
increase our knowledge of the Pacific " in order to render
less hazardous the voyages of our hardy sailors upon the
rock-chafed billows of seas only partially explored, and in
unfrequented bays of barbarous natives. Of the coast of
Sumatra, where many of our vessels sailed and where we
had recently sent the Potomac to punish the natives who had
captured the American Friendship, we had no charts; nor
had we any of the Fijis, where several of our ships had been
lost and men slaughtered. In the vicinity of the Society,
New Caledonia and Solomon's Islands, where we had over
200 whale ships, there was much danger of shipwreck. The
stories of lost mariners were not fictions. Almost every
arrival from the Pacific " brought some news of shipwreck,
mutiny or massacre. Even at the Friendly Islands cap-
tains had been seized in order to exact ransoms, and the
presence of a man-of-war seemed to be necessary to pro-
tect seamen who had never received any bounties, but who,
as children of the sea, might be called to bear a double share
^- Cong. Globe, May 9, 1836.
"J. N. Reynolds' Address, Apr. 3, 1836.
" In 1837 it was estimated that the United States had 460 vessels
in the Pacific. This was one-tenth of all our tonnage.
54 American Rclafioiis in the Pacific and far East. [54
of usefulness in some great ocean conflict of the future. The
United States squadron on the Pacific coasts at this time
consisted only of one frigate, two sloops and a schooner.
Reynolds considered that a judicious exhibition of a
stronger force, together with a humane policy, was neces-
sary to gain the confidence of the natives.'"
Those who urged the expedition proposed that it should
have the following purposes:"'
1 . To note accurately the position of islands and harbor?
and rocks along the paths of United States whalers and
traders.
2. To release from the islands unhappy captives left there
by wrecks.
3. To suppress misconduct on American vessels, prevent
mutiny and desertions, and endeavor to end crueltv, licen-
tiousness and extortion in the islands.
4. Look for land in the Soutli polar seas.
5. Collect specimens and facts to subserve the advance-
ment of science in natural histor}-, linguistics, etc.
Leaders in Navy Department circles held that it would
encroach upon the rights of naval officers for a corps of
scientific citizens to accompany the expedition. Many ob-
stacles were presented to defeat the object of the enterprise.
The people were told that it would be expensive, confer
no benefit upon commerce, and that it aimed at nothing
but to explore Antarctic icebergs. The Navy Department
decided Reynolds should not accompany the expedition,
and taking advantage of the crisis of 1837, convoked a
'■'On June 11. 1836, Benjamin Rodman, of New Bedford, in a
letter to J. N. Reynolds, referring to tlie advantages which tlie ex-
pedition would have upon our marine colonies, said: " Whj-
should we have governors, judges, and all the paraphernalia of
courts in territories where there is a bare possibility that an Indian
may be murdered, or become a murderer, steal a horse or have
his horse stolen; and not have a superintending influence abroad,
where our ships are daily traversing from island to island ....
that the savage may be awed into respect, and the mutineer's hand
bound in submission? " '" N. Am. Rev.. Oct., 1837.
55] The U. S. Exploring Expedition. 55
new commission to cut down the force. Jones, who was
to have commanded the expedition, resigned; Shubrick de-
cHned to take his place; Kearney was prevented from ac-
cepting the command; Captain Gregory, being a friend of
Reynolds, declined, and Wilkes, who had been in Europe
making purchases of instruments, was appointed over the
heads of his fellow-officers.
The expedition was finally organized in 1838.'' Its pur-
pose was purely " scientific and useful," though several
scientific men were not permitted to sail with it.'' It was
divested of all military character, the armament being
adopted merely for necessary defence against natives, while
engaged in surveys, and not adopted with views of conquest
or war. There w-ere six vessels in the squadron : "
The Vincennes, sloop-of-war 780 tons
" Peacock, sloop-of-war 650 "
Porpoise, gun-brig 230 "
" Relief, slow-going store ship.
" Sea Gull, New York pilot-boat. .110 " )
" Flying Fish, New York pilot-boat. 96 " |
Wilkes was directed by his instructions to determine the
longitude of Rio Janeiro, examine the resources of Rio
Negro, make researches, at Terra del Fuego, explore the
South Antarctic between Powell's group and Palmer's Land,
sail to Cook's ne plus ultra in 105 west longitude, return to
Valparaiso for supplies, visit the Society Islands, verify the
position of certain shoals in the Navigators' group, examine
the Fijis with a view to the selection of a harbor for whaling
vessels, go to Sydney and from there make a second
attempt to penetrate within the Antarctic circle south of Van
Dieman's Land, and after returning to the Sandwich Islands
for more stores, to explore along the Columbia river and
" Exec. Doc. 147, 25-2, vol. vii, Feb. 5, 1838. 630 pp. with good
alphabetical index.
'' For the sake of harmony. Reynolds was not allowed to go.
'* Exec. Doc. 255, 25-2, vol. viii. Mar. 16, 1838.
56 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [56
California, then direct his course to Japan, endeavor to find
a safe route through the Sulu sea which would shorten tlie
route of our vessels to China during the season of contrary
monsoons (and facilitate our navigation with the Philip-
pines) and return to the United States via the Straits of
Billiton, Singapore, and the Cape of Good Hope."*
Before reaching the Pacilic Wilkes stopped at Madeira,
made a brief stay at St. lago, of the Cape Verde group,
and remained at Rio six weeks for repairs and to re-
place inferior supplies. The passage around Cape Horn
was dangerous and the Sea Gull was lost. On April 14 the
Relief reached Valparaiso. In May the Vinccnncs and Pea-
cock arrived. The squadron next stopped in Callao, the
harbor of Lima. The Relief then went to the Sandwich
Islands and to Sydney carrying supplies. Wilkes, with
other vessels, went to the Poumotu group (Low Archi-
pelago or Tuomata). A month later he reached Minerva
Island (Clermont Tonnerre) of the same group and began
the study of corals. The few natives seen gave no welcome,
and apparently did not want to be discovered. " Go to
your lands," said they, " this belongs to us and we do not
want to have anything to do with you."
Tahiti, where Cook observed the transit of Venus in 1769,
was the next rendezvous. American, British and French
consuls lived there (also missionaries), and whaling vessels
often came for supplies. The natives brought a profusion
of pigs, cocoanuts and bananas. Owing to the clamorous
press of natives, only great chiefs were permitted to come
aboard." The latter came to solicit laundry work. While
surveys were being made the scientists studied the geo-
logical formations of the island. Wilkes found it necessary
to protest against illicit trade and excessive use of in-
toxicants.
" Synopsis of the Wilkes Expedition, Washington, 1842.
" Women were not allowed to come on the ship at night, as they
had evidently been accustomed to do with other vessels.
57] The U. S. Exploring Expedition. 57
After a visit to Eimeo, Wilkes sailed to the Samoan
Islands and surveyed and mapped them as he had Tahiti.
At Oloosinga he dined with the king, and not understanding
Samoan etiquette, came near creating a disturbance by
showing the same courtesy to a kanaka (common) as he did
to the king. He surveyed Pango Pango harbor, of Tutuila,
and the Bay of Apia, of Upolu. The council of chiefs of the
Malo party, in the presence of the naval officers and mis-
sionaries (November 5, 1839), agreed to rules and regula-
tions for protection of foreign consuls, vessels and seamen,
the apprehension of deserters, prohibition of all trade in
spirituous liquors, and all work on Sunday, except when
absolutely necessary, and regulating landing anchorage and
pilotage. For a dangerous renegade that the United States
desired, a large reward was oflfered.
From Apia, Wilkes sailed to Sydney via Fijis, and after
examining into social problems and penal colonies, pre-
pared to explore in the polar ice-fields. Leaving the scien-
tific corps, he started on a voyage of two and one-half
months, and on January 16, 1840, discovered land within
the Antarctic circle." After completing repairs at Sydney,
he went to New Zealand and witnessed native war dances,
but was not interested in what he saw there. On reaching
the Tonga (Friendly) group he found the natives quarrelling
and trying to annex neighbors' territory, and he attempted
to reconcile the parties.
At the Fijis, where he lost tv^o officers through the
treacherous character of the cannibalistic natives, he ob-
tained (June 10, 1840) the signatures of eleven kings and
chiefs to the agreement concerning rules and regulations
previously accepted by Samoan chiefs.^
At the Sandwich Islands (October, 1840) he received
information from the United States. He was impressed
" U. S. Exploring Expedition, vol. ii, chaps, ix and x.
^'' G. M. Colvocoresses: Four years in a Government Expedi-
tion, 1838-42. N. Y., 1852.
58 America)! Rclatiojis vi fJic Pavific and Far East. {'^'S
with the good influence of the missionaries ni the trans-
formation of the natives. After a brief rest, the Vincenncs
and Porpoise were directed toward the coast of Oregon, and
the Peacock sailed to the Phoenix group, Samoa, ElHce and
Kingsmill groups, and then via Honolulu to the Oregon
coast, where it was wrecked."'
Returning to Hawaii in October, 1841, Wilkes sailed to
Manila " and made observations in the interior of Luzon.
Of the Sulu sea he made surveys and charts, and, at Sohung,
obtained a treaty (a promise) from the Sultan, guaranteeing
protection to all United States vessels visiting his dominion.
Reaching Singapore in February, 1842, he sailed home via
Cape of Good Ho])e, with a cargo of plants and seeds, from
the South Seas, which formed the nucleus of the Botanical
Gardens at Washington.
.Soon after his return to the United States, Wilkes was
arraigned before a court-martial on charges of oppression,
injustice to his men, illegal and severe punishment of merci-
less savages, falsehood and scandalous conduct, but he was
acquitted after an investigation of six weeks." In his own
report of the expedition, Wilkes said: " I shall always
have the proud and conscientious feeling of having done
my duty: and that I have carried the moral influence of our
country wherever our flag has waved."
The Wilkes expedition was followed by exploring expe-
ditions to other parts of the world: Lynch to the Dead
sea, Fremont to California, and Dr. Kane to the Arctic
regions. The second national enterprise by the United
States in the Pacific was undertaken in 1853, under the
direction of Commander Cadwalladcr Ringgold, and its
[)urposc was to make explorations and meteorological ob-
servations in Pehring sea, the Japan sea, the Yellow sea.
" U. S. Exploring Expedition, vol. v.
" His report of the expedition gives a summnry of the liislory
of Manila.
"Navy Dept. Tracts, vol. xiv. No. 25. Wilkes: .'\ntarctie Ex-
ploration. [Letter to Washington Union, Aug. 12. 1847.!
59] The U. S. Exploring Expedition. 59
and the Japan, Kurile, Aleutian and Bonin Islands '' in the
interests of commerce, and for the welfare and protection
of the many American citizens who were engaged in the
whale fisheries. It consisted of five vessels: the Vincennes,
the steamer John Hancock, the brig Porpoise, the tender
/. Fenimore Cooper, and the John P. Kennedy. Important
surveys in the North Pacific were conducted under the
command of John Rodgers'' The increasing importance
of South America, the interesting islands to the westward,
and California and Oregon, induced the Secretary of the
Navy, in December, 1856, to recommend that the regular
Pacific force should be supplemented by a second
squadron.*"
'' F. D. Stuart: Journal of a cruise of the U. S. Ship Vincennes.
[In MS. at Navy Department.]
-' Rep. of Secy, of Navy. Dec. 3, 1855. Lieut. A. W. Haber-
sham: My Last Cruise. Phila.. 1857.
^ In 1855, the regular Pacific squadron cruised in the vicinity of
Astoria, Hawaii. Fiji, Mexico, and Chile. In December, 1855, the
Secretary of the Navy announced that a vessel would soon be sent
to correct irregularities of the natives in the Marquesas group.
CHAPTER VI.
COLONIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
The Port Lloyd Colony in the Bonin Islands.
Among the many American pioneers in the Pacific who
for over a century, with silent and persevering efforts, have
led in a movement of whose magnitude they scarcely
dreamed, there were some who long ago had views of estab-
lishing settlements or securing advantageous stations on
islands in the Far East.' Delano, who sailed from Boston
___ _
^ Others were interested in establishments on islands nearer to
the American coast of the Pacific.
In 1813, Captain D. Porter, asserting American rights by dis-
covery, conquest and possession, and " influenced by humanity "
and the request of the friendly natives, as well as by vievirs of na-
tional policy, and the immediate need of security and supplies for
his vessels, formally took possession of Madison Island, of the
Washington group, and took steps to hold it.
In 1832, Governor J. Vilomil. a native of Louisiana, established
on Charles Island, of the Galapagos groui). a colony which he had
long projected. In 181 1, he thought of applying to Spain for per-
mission to make the settlement, but heard that Spain would prob-
ably not permit it. When Colombia established its independence
he again contemplated his colony, but his friends discouraged him
and kept him inactive until 1820 when, influenced by the death of
his wife and two children, and tired of society, he petitioned for a
charter which, granted in 1831, conceded the possession of the
islands and authorized the establishment of a colony. Colonel
Hernandez and twelve colonists who, in January, 1832, were sent
to take possession, were followed in April and June by both men
and women, and, in October, by Governor Vilomil and eighty
others. They labored with zeal, and soon the productions of the
island were enough for several hundred more inhabitants. Gov-
ernor Vilomil, who, seated upon his rock, exercised almost abso-
lute power, under the severest penalties prohibited the introduc-
tion of liquors, and administered severe punishments when they
were considered necessary to teach the colonists that their true
61] Colonial Establishments. 61
as second officer on the Massachusetts, March, 1790, left
the vessel at Macao and entered English service under Com-
modore McClure, who planned and began a romantic pro-
ject of making an estabUshment on the Pelew Islands.
In 1834 Captain Morrell visited some small islands of the
Admiralty and other groups, which he had intentions of
colonizing with a party of young men and women from the
United States/
In 1832, five white persons,' with a small party of natives,
sailed from the Sandwich Islands to establish a colony on
Peel Island, one of the uninhabited, picturesque Bonin
group, 500 miles from Japan. Having tried and become
tired of various climes, they sighed for a far-off isolated
island where they " could love as they loved in the golden
time." They had been informed by Charlton, the British
consul, that the islands had waters abounding in fish and
turtle, woods full of game, shores w'ith safe harbors, and
fertile valleys green with verdure and capable of yielding
ricli returns. On reaching Port Lloyd with their stock
and garden seeds, and the British flag, they found that they
had been misled, but saw that it was too late to return. The
beautiful scenery — bays, valleys, ravines, natural tunnels,
and wide-spreading trees — were attractive, but TMazarra saw
nothing to invite permanent settlement, and his party soon
found that in this Far West men must work, and that waters
reflecting the bright stars on silent nights were frequently
tossed by typhoons, earthquakes and irregular winds.
interests were peace among themselves and justice towards the
people of visiting vessels. Though appointed United States consul
at Guayaquil, he declined the position, stating that he could be of
more service as governor of his colony, and that his enterprise
would be valuable to at least one branch of American commerce.
J. N. Reynolds visited the island in 1833 and said it might soon
become very important to the whaling interests of the United
States in the Pacific where a new and extensive world was open-
ing to the people of the West.
' See p. 45.
'They were: Matthew Mazarra, a Genoese; A. B. Chapman and
Nathaniel Savory, of Massachusetts; Richard Millechamp, of Eng-
land; and Charles Johnson, of Denmark.
(!2 .hncriiiVi Rclatiojis in the Pacific and Far East. |»)3
The group had been discovered as early as 1675 by the
Japanese. In 1823, Captain Coffin, of the American
whaler Transit, hail visited one of the islands and given his
name to it. An English whaler. I William, had visited the
harbor in 1826 and was lost by neglect. In 1827, Captain
Beechey. (^f the P>ritish vessel Blossom, had taken pos-
session of Peel Island. The convenient intermediary posi-
tion of the group for watching the trade with China, the
Philippine:; and Russia was not fully seen at that day.
The settlers built snugly thatched, comfortable cabins and
prepared to furnish supplies for passing whalers, but their
life was by no means peaceful. Dissensions arose. The
whaler Cadnnis, in 1833, left fifteen refractory seamen, who
defiantly committed outrages. In 1836 the settlers agreed
to a written code called '' The laws of the Bonin Islands,"
which was posted on the wall of the dwelling of Mr. Chapin,
who had a library of fifty or sixty books and was charac-
terized as polite and intelligent. This code provided that
all disputes should be settled by the opinion of the majority;
that none should sell turtle or aid vessels in getting it; that
none should maltreat another's slaves or servants or en-
deavor to seduce any woman from her lord: and that none
should encourage or aid desertions from ships. Later in
the same year, an American vessel on a voyage around the
world, stopped at the settlement. Ruschenberger has given
us a picture of the people at the time. There were then
nineteen women on the island. The morality of the com-
munity was of a low grade, and religion was out of the ques-
tion. Infanticide and infidelity were common. Both men
and women lounged on rough-hewn logs in the shade,
abandoning all work and devoting their time to the con-
sumption of three barrels of New England rum which had
just been received, the first they had had for nearly a year.*
After Millechamp returned to iMigland, the task of gov-
* Rusclu-nberRer: Voyapc .^roinui the World. 1836-.17 Cliap.
xli. Phila.. 1838.
63] Colonial EstablisJniiciits. 63
erning the little colony devolved upon Mazarra, who, in
1842, returned to the Sandwich Islands in an English whaler
to encourage additional settlers and laborers to emigrate.
He also obtained from Alexander Simpson, the British con-
sul, such recognition as he felt necessary to establish his
authority. Though there were then only twenty persons
in the small colony, he had found it no easy matter to gov-
ern. Simpson drew up a paper requesting that Mazarra
should be considered the head of the colony until he should
be replaced by some officer appointed directly by Her
Majesty.
The events of the next few years placed Savory at the
head of the colony. Millechamp returned to the Pacific,
but took up his residence in Guam. Mazarra died, leav-
ing a young widow, a pretty native of Guam. Savory mar-
ried the widow, began to rear a family, and became the
patriarchal magistrate. Cultivating his little farm, he sold
to whalers the sweet potatoes which he raised and the rum
which he distilled from sugar cane. He made considerable
money, which he deposited in the ground; but one day he
became too confidential and friendly with visitors from a
schooner carrying the American flag, who carried away his
money and his journal, taking with them also two women
of his household, who afterwards declared, at Honolulu,
they had no desire to return.
In 1853, Perry visited the settlement while on his expe-
dition to Japan." He found a population of thirty-one, of
whom eight were whites, who had chosen good-natured
wives from the Sandwich Islands emigrants. The people
seemed happy and contented; they cultivated sweet potatoes,
corn, pumpkins, onions, taro, watermelons, bananas and
pineapples; they raised enough sugar and tobacco for their
own consumption. Seeing the importance of the islands
to commerce, between California and China, he made ex-
plorations, distributed seeds, left live stock and various
'' Japan Expedition, vol. i, p. 201.
64 Amcricati Rclat!0)is in tJic Pacific and Far East. [G I
implements of husbanclr\ , and purchased from Savory the
title to a piece of land suitably located for the construction
of buildings for a naval depot." In a report to the Secretary
of the Navy, on June 25. he said if the Department desired
he would take possession in the name of the United States.
The inhabitants practically disowned the sovereignty of
England, hoisting the British flag only as a signal on the
arrival of a vessel. They recognized that they were
able to take care of themselves and needed no foreign
control.'
After Perry left, the settlers, following his suggestion
and advice, met in convention at Savory's house and estab-
lished a form of municipal government for the colony of
Peel Island, electing Savory chief magistrate. The magis-
trate, acting with the two councilmen, who were also
elected by the convention, were to serve for two years, and
were given authority to make such rules and regulations
as they should consider necessary for the public good. Such
laws required the approval of two-thirds of the whole num-
ber of residents. Two pilots for the port were selected by
unanimous vote and given authority to appoint capable sub-
stitutes. Among other regulations was one against the
discharge of crews by captains when in the port. Another
prohibited the enticing or secretion of deserters, placing the
fine at $50. All penalties were to be pecuniary. The mag-
istrate was to be the final court for all claims and disputes.
He and the council were given power to direct the seizure
and sale of any property of any offender, sufficient to liqui-
date fines against such offender. All fines were to consti-
tute a public fund, kept by the chief magistrate and appro-
priated as he and the council might deem proper, but a pub-
lished statement was to be made each year. At the end of
each year, all unexpended moneys were to be equally di-
vided, unless otherwise ordained bv the convention. The
Japan Expedition, vol. i. p. 211; vol. ii. pp. 127-33.
Japan Expedition, vol. i, pp. 199-200.
65] Colonial Establishments. 65
magistrate and council were authorized, whenever they
should consider it necessary, to call a convention of the
people to amend or increase the laws.
In December, 1853. at Hong Kong, just before leaving
for Japan, Perry was surprised to learn from Sir George
Bonham, the English superintendent of trade, that his visit
to the Bonins and his purchase of a coal depot had attracted
the attention of Lord Clarendon, of the British Govern-
ment, who, acting on a statement of Alexander Simpson,
who had once been the British representative in the South
Seas, gave instructions to ask some explanations." In re-
ply, while expressing his doubt of the right of Great Britain
to claim sovereignty, Perry stated that the purchase of land
was of a strictly private character, and without any instruc-
tions from Washington. The question of sovereignty he
was willing to leave " to be discussed hereafter." '
" Japan Expedition, vol. i, p. 203.
' Perry favored colonies in those distant regions.
While at Maderia, en route to Japan to negotiate for com-
mercial relations, safe harbors, and coaling stations. Perry (on
Dec. 14. 1852,) wrote the Secretary of the Navy that as a prelimi-
nary step the United States should at once secure ports of refuge
and supply on islands south of Japan, and conciliate the inhabi-
tants so that our friendly purposes might be better understood by
the Japanese Government. He suggested that the occupation erf
the principal ports of the Loo Choo Islands for the accommodation
of warships and merchant vessels would be justified by the rules
of moral law and necessity, and by the amelioration of the condi-
tion of the natives whom the Prince of Satsuma ruled by fear
rather than by power to coerce obedience. Great Britain already
held the most important points in the East India and Chinese
seas. Perry, therefore, thought the United States should lose no
time in adopting active measures to secure ports in the islands that
fortunately were still left. [Sen. Exec. Doc. 34, 33-2. pp. 12-15.]
The President concurred in Perry's opinion, and Secretary Ever-
ett (Feb. 15, 1853) gave instructions to secure ports either in the
Japanese islands or elsewhere, but to use no force except in the
last resort. [Ibid., p. 15.] On Jan. 25, 1854, Perry, while at
Napa in Great Loo Choo. wrote Secretary Dobbin of the navy
that, in case of failure to negotiate with Japan, it was his aim " to
take under the surveillance of the American flag, upon the ground
of reclamation for insults and injuries committed upon American
5
66 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [66
Desiring to consummate an arrangement to fill up the
remaining link of a great mail route of the world, he con-
sidered that the question of sovereignty was not so import-
ant as that of an open door for the hospitable reception of
all nations. At another time, speaking on the extension of
American trade in the East, he said: "What benefits the
conmicrce of the United States and extends American ter-
ritory cannot but result advantageously to other powers." "*
Perry's plan was to secure the organization of a stock
company of merchants and artisans, to send two vessels
laden with building materials and supplies for whalers and
naval vessels, and as trade grew up, to send out young mar-
ried people, gradually building up a thrifty conmiunity
which would extend over the entire group and perhaps send
missionaries to Japan, Formosa " and other benighted coun-
tries." "
Contemplating British rivalry in maritime enterprise, he
had often suggested that commercial settlements in China
and Pacific waters would be vitally necessary to the con-
tinued success of American commerce in those regions, but
considered it unadvisable to erect for these settlements any
defences except such as were necessary for protection
against pirates and common marauders." After the success
of his Japan expedition, speaking of the tendency to seek
citizens, this island of Great Loo Choo." The people seemed
friendly, and he intimated that they should not be abandoned " as
found, defenceless and overburdened." The President, however,
feeling that such a course might prove embarassing, was " disin-
clined, without authority of Congress, to take and retain posses-
sion of an island in that distant country," unless demanded by
more potent reasons. Secretary Dobbin wrote (May 23, 1854) in
reply: " If, in future, resistance should be offered and threatened,
it would also be rather mortifying to surrender the island, if once
seized." He approved Perry's suggestions as to the estal)lishment
of a coal depot at Port Lloyd, however, and also his correspond-
ence with Bonham, as to the sovereignty of the Bonins. [Sen.
Exec. Doc. 34, 3.V2. p. 112.]
'"Japan Expedition, vol. ii, p. 180.
" Japan Expedition, vol. i, p. 212.
'■' Sen. Exec. Doc. 34, 33-2, Perry to Secy, of Navy, Dec. 14, 1852.
67] Colonial Establishments. 67
further expansion, he said: " Perhaps we cannot change the
course of events, or avert our ultimate destiny. ... It be-
longs to us to act honorably and justly . . . and to encour-
age changes in the political condition of Japan, China, and
especially Formosa." He urged that in Formosa,^^ whose
commanding position resembled that of Cuba, there should
be an American commercial settlement from which com-
munication might be established with China, Japan, Loo
Choo, Cochin China, Cambodia, Siam and the Philippines.
He quoted with approval the statement that colonies are
as necessary to a commercial nation as ships and that it
would be difficult for any government to prevent the estab-
Hshment, in distant regions, of trading or religious settle-
ments which would naturally grow into flourishing and self-
governing communities.
The British consul at Yokohama, who visited Port Lloyd,
in 1875, said Perry's code of government for the Bonins was
never enforced, and soon forgotten. In the years following
1854, whalers and men-of-war visited the island occasionally,
but the conditions were not favorable to rapid increase of
population. In 1861, Japan made an effort to colonize
Peel Island by sending 100 colonists from Yedo, but soon
wearied of the scheme, and by 1863 all her settlers had with-
drawn, leaving only a stone stating that the islands were
discovered by Japan and were still her property.
By 1875 the community at Port Lloyd numbered 69 —
37 male and 32 female, 20 being children, but only 5 were
entirely white. The settlers, with their few wants supplied
by whalers, still lived in rudely-constructed, sparsely-fur-
nished cottages in sheltered nooks, cultivated patches of
" In Feb. 1857, Parker, the United States Commissioner in China
suggested the policy of occupying Formosa. In his despatch to
the Department of State he enclosed a letter from Gideon Nye,
Jr., who urged occupation in the interest of humanity and com-
merce, and ofTered to assist in colonizing the island, if the United
States would protect him. Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, exhibit G.,
pp. 1203-04.
G8 .liner icivi Relations in the I'aeitie and Far East. [68
sugar caiH- and maize, raised pigs, geese and ducks, and
caught turtle. Tliev appeared lo live in decency and order,
and to be comfortable, but they had no thought of religion,
and with the exception of one person, could not read or
write. Life had often been insecure among them, eleven
men having met violent deaths within twenty-five years.
The settlers had a repugnance to settled government.
Though the American flag was displayed from one of the
huts, the American Government apparently had no idea
of taking possession. 15y the opening of Japan to the world
the Honins became less important. They were left to the
southward of the steamer line routes between the United
States and the Orient, Yokohama being a more convenient
and more desirable station. Mr. Robertson, the British
consul at Yokohama, who visited Port Lloyd in 1875, pro-
posed that Great Britain should take the Bonins beneath
her sheltering wing^, initiate some simple inexpensive form
of government there, and attempt to guide the young set-
tlement through its early j^erils." Japan then seemed un-
able to colonize Ycsso, right at her doors, but in 1878 she
took undisputed possession of the whole Bonin group.
The United States, especially after the ratification of the
treaty with Japan, probably had no desire to enter into dis-
cussion regarding cjuestions of title to an island so far
distant." In 1835, Edmund Roberts, who had succeeded
in negotiating a treaty with Siam, was instructed to en-
deavor studiously to inculcate upon all (including Japan) the
idea that the United States, though strong and resourceful,
had a history indicating no ambition for conquest and no
desire for colonial jjossessions. and a policy whose essential
part was to avoid political connection with any other gov-
i-rnment.'"
Wilkes, during his explorations in 1841, had surveyed
" Chaml)ers' Journal. July 5, 1879.
'* Sec p. 52; also Senate Doc. 77, 20-2. February lO, 1829.
" I Sp. M. 131.
G9] Colonial Establisluiiciits. (19
Wake Island (19 X. lat., 166 E. long.) and asserted title, but
the United States Navy never took possession/' Webster,
in June, 1852, agreed to send a naval vessel to protect Amer-
ican guano interests on the Lobos Islands which were not
occupied by any of the South American States, and had been
visited by American fishermen tor half a century, but he
decided to yield to the protests of Peru, who declared her
ownership had never been questioned before.'" Under an
act of Congress of August 18, 1856, conferring discretionary
power on the President to assume the ownership of guano
islands discovered by United States citizens," Commander
Davis, of the St. Mary's, sailed from the coasts of Central
America in 1858 and took formal possession of Jarvis and
Nantucket islands in the name of the United States, and
deposited in the earth a declaration to that effect. Lieu-
tenant Brooke, in the next year, took possession of Bird
and Necker islands, near the Hawaiian group.'" In Oc-
tober, 1858, Cakobau, the principal chief of Ban, and also
king of the whole Fiji group, in a document offering the
sovereignty to Queen Mctoria,"' declared that his action was
'■ The United States took possession of Wake Island, in Janu-
ary, 1899, with a view to using it as a station on a cable-telegraph
line between Hawaii and the Philippines.
^* Sen. Exec. Rp. 109. 32-1, Aug. 21, 1852.
'* Under this act the United States, in 1898, owned 57 islands and
groups of islands in the Pacific, and 13 in the Caribbean sea.
■" Report Secy, of Navy, Dec. 2, 1859.
'^ This deed of cession was ratified, and signed by 21 chiefs on
December 14, 1859, and by others in August and September. The
legislative assembly of New South Wales recommended the ac-
ceptance of the proffered sovereignty, and captains in the British
navy recommended occupation, but after sending Dr. B. Seemann
to secure further information, the British Government decided to
decline the offer. Seemann reported that the islands would be-
come a flourishing colony. American whaleships which had been
getting supplies at Samoa or Tonga were now beginning to go to
Fiji on account of the exorbitant prices recently asked by the na-
tives of the former islands. [Berthold Seemann: Viti, Cambridge,
Eng., 1862.] In 1864, an attempt was made to establish a regular
government based on English models, but was not a success.
Meanwhile the rumor went that the United States intended to
70 American Rclatians in the PaciHc and Far East. [70
for the purpose of preventing severe measures threatened
by the United States against the king and the sovereignty
and the territory of the islands in case of the non-payment of
a debt of $45,000"' which, under the existing state of affairs
in the islands."' he would not be able to collect within the
brief time stated in the contract.
In 1867, by the acquisition of Alaska, the United States
became the owner of the Aleutian Islands, extending almost
to the Asiatic coasts. On August 28 of the same year,
Captain Reynolds, by order of the United States Navy,
occupied the Midway Islands [28° 12' north lat., 177° 22'
west long.] which had been discovered by Captain N. C.
Brooks on July 5, 1859, and first occupied by the Pacific
Mail Steamship Company in July, 1867."' The Senate Com-
mittee, in January, 1869, for both political and commercial
reasons, favored making a naval station there, stating that
the United States should have at least one harbor of refuge
on the route to China, and should prevent the possibility
of European occupation of any island which, under their
control, might become another Nassau. The Secretary
of the Navy, in his report of the previous December, had
assume the protectorate. In 1869, Lord Granville considered that
there would be " more disadvantage in Great Britain taking the
responsibility of the government of Fiji than in the risk of the
United States assuming the Protectorate." [Pari. Papers, 1875.]
Rut the Australian colonies at the Conference of 1870 called for
Uritish annexation, and Lord Kimberly decided to send a com-
mission to report. The report of Commander Goodenough and
Mr. Layard was strongly in favor of annexation. The cession was
accepted in October, 1874, ^"d the islands were organized as a
crown colony with Sir Arthur Gordon as Governor.
[Egerton: History of English Colonial Policy, p. 396.]
" Quarterly Review, July, 1859, p. 203.
"The Fijis, which had become the resort of the European
trader, "threatened to become an anarchic Hell." [Egerton: His-
tory of English Colonial Policy, p. 396.]
The natives, however, were not such ferocious cannibals as they
had formerly been. [Quarterly Review. July, 1859, p. 203.]
"Senate Rp. 194, 40-3, Jan. 28, 1869. Sen. Exec. Doc. 79. 40-2.
Report of Secy, of the Navy, 1870, p. 8, and 1871, pp. 6, 7 and 8.
71] Colonial Establishments. 71
said the rapid increase of Pacific commerce and of Ameri-
can interests springing up in connection with our recent
extensive acquisitions, our rising States on the Pacific, ever-
increasing intimacy with the islands of the ocean, made the
United States interested beyond any other power in giving
security to mariners in the Pacific. On March i, 1869, the
sum of $50,000 was appropriated for opening a harbor at
Midway; but, after spending that amount, it was seen that
$400,000 would be required, and the plan was abandoned.
The United States, however, still owns the island.
CHAPTER VII.
UNLOCKING THE GATES OF THE ORIENT.
Until a comparatively recent date, the Orient remained a
sealed mystery to the nations of Western civilization and
progress.' It was only by the persistent and increasingly
determined efforts of foreigners that Japan was finally in-
duced to open her doors and windows. China, assuming
an arrogant supremacy, though she had permitted a limited
trade, endeavored to erect barriers of cxclusiveness, but
was finally forced to be more liberal in commercial relations,
and slowly extended her intercourse with the younger and
more progressive nations of the West.
Japan. — The Japanese policy from 1637' to 1854 was one
of exclusion and inclusion — to keep the world out and the
Japanese at home — and the Dutch factory at Deshema of
Nagasaki was the only window or loophole of observation
during that time. All attempts by foreigners to secure
trading advantages were successfully resisted. The strict
isolation of Japan, closing her eyes to keep out the light of
the universe, and refusing to open her arms to the West,
' Humboldt once said that the narrow neck of land forming the
isthmus of Panama had been the " bulwark of the independence of
China and Japan."
' Between 1542 and 1600 Christian missionaries exerted consider-
able inlluencc in Japan. By 1581 tliere were 200 churches and
150,000 converts. A few years later the rivalry of the opposing
orders, the Spanish Jesuits and the Portuguese Franciscans, cre-
ated animosities, and resulted in persecution by the Japanese. At
the battle of Sckigahara, in 1600, in which 10,000 lives were lost,
the Christian army (of Southern Jajjan) was defeated. \ reaction-
ary policy of the conservatives followed, and an edict of 1606 pro-
hibited Christianity. The last Christian uprising was defeated in
1636.
73] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — Japan. 73
provoked American enterprise which elsewhere had been
mastering opposition. As early as 1815 Commodore
Porter proposed an expedition to open trade, and Monroe
intended to send him, but the plans were never matured."
In 1832 (as previously stated), just after the plunder of the
American ship Friendship at Ouallah Battoo, Captain Ed-
mund Roberts," who had been well acquainted with the
commerce of the Far East, was sent as United States con-
fidential agent to negotiate for treaties.' He was instructed
to proceed to Japan to open trade, in case he found pros-
pects favorable, but he was directed not to enter the country
until he should receive assurance that nothing unbecoming
the dignity of the United States would be required. Though
he succedeed in securing a treaty with Siam " and the Sultan
' De Bow's, Dec, 1852. In 1797, the Elisa of New York, carry-
ing the American flag with seventeen stars, sailed to Nagasaki,
under the command of Capt. Steward, but did not open trade.
Capt. John Derby, of Salem, Mass., soon made an unsuccessful
attempt to open trade. In 1803, Capt. Steward returned to Na-
gasaki, but found that the Japanese desired no American products
except ginseng. The discovery of valuable whale fisheries near
the Kurile Islands, and southward, increased the importance of
friendly relations with Japan. Soon there began a long story of
shipwrecked seamen who were imprisoned by the Japanese. J. Q.
Adams denied the right of Japan to remain a hermit nation, but
his was " the voice of one crying in the wilderness."
* See pp. 48 and 68.
'Sen. Exec. Doc. 34, 33-2, Jan. 31, 1855. Sen. Exec. Doc. 59,
32-1, vol. ix, Apr. 8, 1852.
" In Siam, with her old and venerable code of crude and incom-
plete laws, where the creditor still had absolute power over the
life and property of the debtor, American commerce had been
subject to any pecuniary extortions or other impositions which
avarice might inflict. At Bankok. on March 30, 1833, Roberts,
secured a treaty of amity and commerce, nine feet and seven
inches long, removing the imposition on imports, releasing debt-
ors from pains and penalties in case they delivered all their prop-
erty, fixing port charges, allowing American citizens to trade di-
rectly with private individuals instead of through the king who
had hitherto fixed prices and delayed trade, and obviating the
necessity of enormous presents to officials. [Edmund Roberts:
Embassy to the Eastern Courts of Cochin China, Siam and Muscat
in the Sloop Peacock, 1832-34. N. Y.. 1837.] A new treaty was
74 America)! Rclatiojis in the Pacific and Far East. [74
of Muscat, and began negotiations with Cochin China, he
did not proceed to Borneo ' nor to Japan.
In 1837 C. W. King, a merchant, went to Japan in the
unarmed Morrison to return some shipwrecked Japanese,
who had been saved from a junk which had gone ashore
near the mouth of the Cohmibia river in 1831, but his ves-
sel being fired upon at Yedo, he returned without succeed-
ing in his mission." The Japanese probably understood
that his principal motive was to open commercial inter-
course. In 1845 the Manhattan, of Sag Harbor, attempting
to return several castaways, met with a similar reception.
In the same year Zadoc Pratt, of New York, laid before the
House a report advising hostility and proposing to send an
embassy to Japan and Corea.
The successful negotiation of a treaty with China in 1844
increased the eflForts to secure communication with Japan.
In 1846 Commodore Biddle, by instructions of May 22,
negotiated by Mr. Harris in May, 1856, and was ratified by the
United States the next year. It was modified in 1867. Relations
with Siam have remained undisturbed, the United States enjoying
the rights and immunities extended to the most favored nation.
In 1884 an agreement regulating the liquor traffic in Siam was
concluded.
Roberts had also endeavored to secure a treaty with Cochin
China, but after engaging in a protracted correspondence and
enduring much Eastern prevarication he failed on account of dis-
agreement as to conventionalities and excessive formalities. But
he made a treaty with the Sultan of Muscat, who wrote Andrew
Jackson an extravagantly figurative and loving letter. After the
Siam treaty had been ratified by the United States Senate in June,
1S34, Roberts was sent to exchange ratifications, and renewed
negotiations with Cochin Ciiina, whose cti(iuette as to titles he
met by a ruse diplomatique, but whose consent to a treaty he was
unable to obtain. [W. S. Ruschenbcrgcr: A Voyage Around the
World, including an Embassy to Muscat and Siam, 1836-37.
Phila., 1838.] He died at Macao, June 12, 1836.
' On June 23. 1850, at Bruni, Joseph Balestier concluded with the
Sultan of Borneo a convention of amity, commerce and navigation,
securing liberty of residence and trade, protection of United States
citizens and shipwrecked seamen, the privilege of extraditionality,
and the use of ports for war vessels.
•Perry: U. S. Japan Expedition, vol. i, pp. 47-49-
75] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — Japan. 75
1845, sailed to Yedo bay and remained ten days, but failed
in his peaceful attempt to gain access to the country. He
was informed that, by law, no trade could be allowed with
any foreign nation except Holland, and that every nation
had a right to manage its own afifairs in its own way. He
received an anonymous, undated communication asking
him to depart as soon as possible and to consult his own
safety by not appearing again upon the coast. While on
board a Japanese junk to receive the official reply, he also
received an unpleasant push from a common Japanese sol-
dier. Captain Glynn afterwards (1851) said that Biddle was
too lenient.
A. H. Everett, of the United States legation at Macao,
who had received full power to negotiate with the Japanese
Government, but had transferred it to Biddle, and who still
had power to renew the attempt at a treaty in case any new
combination of circumstances should increase the prospect
of success, wrote Secretary Buchanan on January 5, 1847,
that perhaps Biddle's attempt to open negotiations had not
been made with sufficient discretion, and had " placed the
subject in a rather less favorable position than it stood
before."
Americans, following the whale to the far ofif seas, were
sometimes wrecked on the coast of the Kurile Islands, and
arrested and cast into Japanese prisons. Even while Biddle
was at Yedo bay, though the Japanese did not mention it,
it seems that American citizens (from the Lazvrence, which
had been wrecked May 27, 1846) were already in Japanese
prisons. After repeated " trials " they were released through
the kindness of the Dutch director at Nagasaki. Other
sailors from American vessels, having been thrown upon
the coasts of Japan in 1848, were imprisoned as spies," and
some were punished for attempting to escape, or for other
insubordination.
" On April 14, 1847, the Netherlands' charge d'affaires notified
Buchanan that Japan, in 1843 had given warning against the ex-
ploration of Japanese coasts.
76 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [76
With the settlement of the Oregon question and the ac-
quisition of CaHfornia, and a corresponding expansion of
opportunity and duty, the United States became more vigi-
lant in guarding American interests in the Pacific, and more
determined to break down Oriental exclusiveness. On
January 31, 1849, Conunandcr (ieisinger, of the United
States East India squadron, hearing in Chinese waters that
sixteen Americans were imprisoned, sent Commander Glynn
with the United States ship Preble '" to demand their re-
lease." The Japanese officials first threatened offensive
operations, then assumed haughty indifference, and finally
tried evasive diplomacy, but they acceded to Glynn's per-
emptory demand for the inunediate delivery of the
prisoners."
Glynn, on returning to Xew York, was enthusiastic in
his desire to secure some arrangement which would divert
the commerce of half the human famih- from foreign chan-
nels into the bosom of the United States. On February
24, 1 85 1, he wrote liowland and Aspinwall that he had
found a strong interest on both sides of the Pacific in favor
of establishing a line of steamers between Asia and America;
and he suggested that Shanghai should be the terminus,
and that an effort should be made to secure coal from
Formosa and Japan." He proposed that the United States
desiring fuel and depots in Japan, and having good cause
for quarrel, should go on with tlie recent congressional in-
quiry into the Japanese imprisonment of Americans, ask
redress, and compel them to adjust the controversy by
'" The Preble had sailed from New York in September. 1846,
during the Mexican war. She was at Honolulu during the trouble
of the French with the Hawaiian Government in November. 1849.
Later, at San Francisco, many of her crew were discharged, and
others ran for the " gold diggings." She arrived at New York
January 2, 1851. [N. Y. Herald, Jan. .?. 1851. In Sen. Exec. Doc.
59. .12-1, Apr. 8, 1852.]
" H. Exec. Doc. 84. 31-1, vol. x, .'\ug. 15. 1850.
" Perry: U. S. Japan Expedition, vol. i.
"Sen. Exec. Doc. 59, 32-1. vol. 9. p. 59.
77] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — Japan. 77
granting depot privileges in some Japanese port. Reflect-
ing on the possible necessity of using force, he said: "We
could convert their selfish government into a liberal republic
in a short time; such an unnatural system would, at the
present day, fall to pieces upon the slightest concussion.
But it is better to go to work peaceably with them if we
can. ... If I read the signs aright this is the time for
action."
On June lo, 1851, Glynn, urging that intercourse with
Japan was demanded by the interests of civilization, and
should be secured, by peaceable means if possible, or by
force if necessary, advised the President to select some
naval officers of tact," able to conduct hostile operations if
necessary, to bear to the Japanese Government a document
that would be a future justification before the world, dis-
claiming any desire to interfere with internal affairs, and
making no complaints for past conduct. He suggested
that the Dutch should be conciliated, and that England,
who was alarmed at our strides in the East, should be rec-
onciled by the assurance that we were asking Japan for
no exclusive privileges.
President Fillmore had already decided, in the interests
of commerce and humanity, to send an envoy to make
another appeal to Japan for friendly intercourse, and to
endeavor to secure coaling facilities for the line of steamers
projected by American citizens. On May 10, 185 1, he
wrote a letter to the emperor, informing him that the
United States had expanded to the Pacific; that in order to
form the last link in the chain of navigation, American ships
must pass near Japanese shores; and that we desired trade,
and needed the coai which Providence had deposited in
Japan for the human family.
Commodore Aulick, in command of the East Indian naval
" Glynn said Biddle's visit of 1846, was unfavorable to the United
States — the Japanese and Loo Choo Islanders having given out
exaggerated reports of his chastisement.
78 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [78
forces, was instructed by Webster, on June lo, 1851, as a
special (non-missionary) envoy to make an effort to secure
from the Japanese the assurance of supplies of coal at fair
prices, either in Japanese ports or on some near island easy
of access, the right of access for American trading vessels,
and the promise of protection of shipwrecked sailors and
property. In 1852, his powers were transferred to Commo-
dore Perry.
On November 13, 1852, Commodore M. C. Perry,'' in-
vested with both naval and diplomatic power, was instructed
to go to Japan with an imposing fleet (as a manifestation
of power) to state that we sought no interference with
religion and we were connected with no European govern-
ment, and to use all amicable means to secure a treaty of
friendship and commerce, but to resort to no force unless
in self-defence in protecting his vessels or crews, or to resent
acts of personal violence to himself or officers. He was
directed to show that our forbearance had not resulted
from timidity; and, in case argument failed to secure a
treaty, he w-as to change his tone and inform Japan that
American citizens, driven to her coasts by w'ind and weather,
must be treated with humanity. He was to use caution
and vigilance, and all journals and private notes of persons
in the expedition were considered to be United States prop-
erty until the Navy Department should give permission to
publish them."
The letter which he carried from President Fillmore to
the Japanese emperor, urged the necessity of new laws,
from time to time, to meet such new conditions of the world
as those resulting from American expansion to the Pacific,
"M. C. Perry (1794-1858) had served as a boy in the War of
1812, and against tlic pirates in the West Indies, and in the cap-
ture of Vera Cruz (1847) and belonged to the same combative stock
as O. H. Perry, the author of that laconic dispatch: "We have
met the enemy and they are ours." His idea was to occupy one
of the Loo Choo Islands as a stronghold from which to terrorize
Japan, but Fillmore counselled peace.
"Sen. Exec. Doc. 34, 33-2, Jan. 31. 1855.
79] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — Japan. 79
the sudden growth of California, whose trade with the East
was rapidly increasing, and the development of steam navi-
gation which required coal depots. " There was a time,"
said the President, " when the ancient laws of your Imperial
Majesty's government were first made." It was suggested
that the experiment of trade might at least be tried for five
years.
Several persons, including von Siebold, a German, who
had been banished from Japan, and was supposed to be em-
ployed as a Russian spy, made application to join the ex-
pedition in the interests of science, but their applications
were refused in the interests of order.
On November 24, with models of American inventions
and other articles for presents. Perry sailed from Norfolk
via Cape of Good Hope, and on May 4, 1853, he reached
Shanghai.
He resolved to act with firmness and decision, and to
refuse to meet any but an officer of the highest rank.
At Napa, of the Loo Choo Islands, where he stopped to
get provisions and to make explorations, he declined to
receive two dignitaries who came alongside his vessel to
present their enormous red cards. By the advice of the
English missionary, he asked an immediate conference with
the chief authority of the islands. On May 28, the regent,
with a score of attendants, actively fluttering their fans to
reduce their temperature, were received on board the Sus-
quehanna with great ceremony and granted the requests to
sell provisions, permit surveys, and allow the officers a
house on shore. When the officers visited the shore, most
of the merchants closed their shops, and the gentry turned
upon their heels and disappeared. For the provisions which
the natives carried to the ship the officials received the
profits. Some of Perry's men, accompanied by Loo Choo
spies, whom they walked almost out of breath, explored
nearly one-half the island in six days, but they had no op-
portunity to converse with the people or to see their in-
terior life.
80 American Relations in flic Pacific and Far East. [80
Perry resolved to pay a return visit to the regent in the
palace of Sheudi. The regent sent a long diplomatic roll,
stating that the " Queen Dowager " had been ill since the
visit of the British admiral, who invaded the sacred palace.
Perry, expressing deep sorrow, offered to send one of his
surgeons to her. Seated in a sedan chair, carried by four
" coolies," and accompanied by a gay procession of 200
persons, he went to the palace of the capital. He was met
with profound salutations by a throng of officials with
flowing robes, fans and umbrellas, and was ushered into the
" elevated enclosure [hall] of fragrant festivities " where the
Americans received weak tea, " dabs of gingerbread," and
tobacco. Then he accompanied the regent into his own
private residence where, with chopsticks, they partook of a
twelve-course Loo Choo dinner, and drank to the health of
the Queen Dowager and son and to the prosperity of the
people.
After a brief visit to the Bonin islands, where he took
possession of the Bailey or Coffin group in the name of the
United States, and purchased land for a coal depot at Port
Lloyd, Perry returned to Loo Choo on June 23 and was
surprised to find that the regent, though still in full pos-
session of his faculties, had been deposed and replaced by
a younger man. After astonishing the people by exhibi-
tions of the Daguerrotype, telegraph, submarine armor.
etc., he sailed away (July 2), feeling that they would be glad
to see him return, and that it was his duty to protect them
as far as possible against the " vindictiveness of their cruel
rulers," who favored exclusiveness.
Sailing to Japan, Perry entered the bay below Yedo on
July 8. where his presence, and his refusal to heed the
scrolls of warning which minor officials held out before
him, created considerable excitement. He refused to go
to Nagasaki, insisted upon talking witli iiDne but the highest
dignitar}-, and his persistence finally induced the Covernor
of L'rago to apply lo the shogun. who, being embarrassed
both from without and within, arranged for an official con-
81] Unlocking ike Gates of the Orient — Japan. 81
ference on July 14, at which two venerable princes received
President Fillmore's letter and presents. Notwithstanding
Japanese intimations that it was now time to go, he resolved
to go farther up the bay. It seemed that the nearer he ap-
proached the imperial city the more polite and friendly the
officials became. When he informed Yezaimon and Tats-
noski of his intention to leave on July 17, the latter ex-
pressed regret, endeavored to drow^n their grief in fresh sup-
plies of wine, grew very aflectionate, and whispered that all
would be well with the President's letter.
Sailing to Hong Kong, Perry refitted his vessels, giving
the Japanese time to come to a decision. His return was
hastened by the suspicious movements of French and Rus-
sian vessels in Eastern seas. He feared that there might
be an attempt to forestall the American negotiations, or to
obtain a foothold in Japan by lending aid to the latter in
case of collision with the Americans. On February 13,
passing the Japanese boats, he confidently advanced up
Yedo bay to the " American anchorage," where he proposed
to meet the Japanese officials. After ten days' '" negotia-
tion " he moved near enough to Yedo to hear the striking
of the night watches, and obtained the promise of a confer-
ence at Yokohama. In a specially prepared " Treaty
House," on March 8, 1854, he met five Japanese officials
who, with imposing ceremonies, submitted a long roll con-
taining a reply to the President's letter. The shogun had
sent copies of the letter to most of the daimios and had
received from many of them answ'ers adverse to the opening
of the country, but. after prolonged conferences he con-
sented to a favorable treaty which was completed on March
31, and conceded the opening of Shimoda and Hakodate to
American vessels. His power was already tottering, and
Japan would have been revolutionized from within if she
had not been invaded from without.
Perry's treaty far exceeded expectations, and other powers
were not slow in securing the advantages which he had
gained. A Russian admiral had stopped at Nagasaki in the
6
82 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [82
latter part of 1853 and demanded a neighborly attitude, the
opening of ports, and a settlement of the boundaries of
Sagalien. On November u he iuul made a proposition to
join forces and cooperate with the Americans, but Perry
civilly declined to take any step which might be interpreted
as " inconsistent with our policy of abstaining from all alli-
ance with foreign powers." " Perhaps a Japanese distrust
of the purposes of Russia had some influence in causing
the success of the American negotiations. The Dutch, who
in 1852, had advised Japan to change its policy of exclu-
sion in favor of all peaceful nations, claimed that they had
aided in securing Perry's success, but Perry had never in-
voked their aid and was not willing to admit their claim.
Having made a good beginning, the United States, in the
interests of trade and international relations, and, with a
spirit of tolerance, liberality and justice toward Japan,
sought new concessions. In 1857 Townsend Harris, w'ho
had been residing at Shimoda as United States consul-gen-
eral, negotiated a treaty enlarging the privileges granted in
1854 and securing the opening of the port of Nagasaki and
the right of permanent residence for Americans at the ports
of Shimoda and Hakodate. At Yedo, in 1858, without any
show of force or compulsion, he won a diplomatic triumph
which revolutionized the relations of Japan with the world.
By firm, honest diplomacy he concluded with the shogun's
ministers a treaty providing for unrestricted commercial
relations, diplomatic representation at Yedo, rights of resi-
dence, trade at certain ports, regulation of duties, religious
freedom and extra-territoriality."
Other powers soon concluded similar treaties. It was
agreed that the President, at the request of Japan, would act
as mediator between the latter and European powers with
whom she might have questions of dispute.
Unfortunately, under the new commercial policy, prices
"Perry: U. S. Japan Expedition, vol. i, p. 61.
"Sen. Exec. Doc. 25, 36-1.
83] Unlocking the Gaics of the Orient — Japan. 83
in Japan rose from loo per cent to 300 per cent. Soon after
the beginning of the American war, cotton rose to over 30
cents per pound. The samaurai, or miHtary class, who suf-
fered most, encouraged the idea that hatred of foreigners
was loyahy to Japan. In 1862 the mikado ordered the
" barbarians " to be expelled, and summoned the shogun
to Kioto to give an account of his stewardship. The
shogun, who saw his power declining, and the daimios de-
serting him to flock to Kioto, was induced through pressure
to proclaim to foreign nations that the ports of Japan were
to be closed against foreign intercourse. The foreigners
now learned that the shogun was not the real emperor, but
they were firm in the purpose to let shp no advantage
already gained.
In Japan, as in China, Secretary Seward, who desired to
substitute fair diplomacy for force, insisted upon the policy
of cooperation of the powers, based on community of inter-
ests. He was opposed to intervention in internal affairs,
but when the daimio of Nagato, opposing the shogun's
treaties, closed the strait of Shimonoseki and fired on an
American merchant steamer, the naval forces of the United
States, Great Britain, France and the Netherlands, with the
approval of the shogun's government, and in order to en-
force treaty rights, opened the strait by force, and com-
pelled the surrender of the hostile daimio." He favored a
policy of neutrality with reference to internal struggles, but
desired the establishm.ent and maintenance of a strong cen-
tral government by which treaties might be enforced, and
native autonomy preserved.
The bombardment by the powers, together with the
report of a Japanese embassy which returned from Europe
in 1864, had a profound effect on the Japanese mind, and
the emperor, with whom the powers began to direct nego-
" Out of a total indemnity fund of $3,000,000 to the combined
powers, the United States received $785,000 which was afterwards
returned (1883).
84 American Relations in the Pacific and Par East. [84
tiations from Hiago below Kioto in 1865, yielded to rati-
fication of treaties in spite of popular prejudice. The
dainiios who had at first opposed the shogun's policy, now
acquiesced in the new policy of the mikado, who was soon
restored to his ancient power, and encouraged the adoption
of Western civilization.
In 1866, England, France, Holland and the United States
agreed to a convention practically depriving Japan of the
right to regulate its tariff beyond five per cent on imports
and exports.^ Though in 1872 Japan failed in her nego-
tiations for a revision of treaties, the United States, since
the growth of the imperial authority in Japan," has been
willing to release the latter from the treaty limitations upon
its judicial and fiscal independence."
China. — In 1784 the Stars and Stripes, floating from the
Ilnif^ress at China, an American trading vessel, first appeared
in the Orient at Canton, the only Chinese port at which
foreigners were permitted to trade. In 1786, President
Washington, in the interests of a rapidly growing trade, ap-
pointed Samuel Shaw as consul at that port. It was over
a half-century later that China first consented to make
treaties regulating and extending commercial intercourse,
and providing for the protection of the lives and property
of American citizens on Chinese territory. From 1786 to
1844 the American consuls at Canton were merely mer-
chants. During that time, however, our trade with China
suffered only one temporary interruption — in 1821, when
Terranora. a sailor on board of the American ship Emily,
v.as judicially murdered by the Chinese magistrate, Pwanyu,
*• Treaties and Conventions, 1889, p. 612.
" See an article by Matsuyama Makato in vol. c.x.wii of N. Am.
Review, pp. 406-26. On the civil discord which resulted in Japa-
nese reforms, sec Sen. Exec. Doc. 65, 40-2, vol. ii, May 23, 1868.
° Sec the Commercial Convention of 1878, and the Treaty of
Commerce and Navigation of November 22, 1894, which went into
effect July 17, 1899.
85] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 85
and the American merchants at Whampoa protested with-
out effect.'^
For many years the powers of Western Europe had been
able to secure a restricted trade."* As early as 1537 the
Portuguese temporarily established a trade at Macao. They
were soon followed by the Spanish, who had established
a colony at Manila in 1543. In 1622 the Dutch attacked
the Portuguese settlements at Macao and occupied the Pes-
cadore (Pang-hu) Islands, and in 1625 they were induced
to move to Formosa by Chinese promises of freedom of
trade, but were driven to Java, a generation later, by the
fleet of Koshinga, the pirate. In 1637 Captain Weddel, with
an English squadron, anchored ofif Macao and compelled
the opening of trade with the English. Soon after 1689
Russian caravans were premitted to go to Peking to trade.
All attempts to secure commercial treaties or regular diplo-
matic intercourse, however, had ended in failure. Most
ambassadors refused to make the nine prostrations required
by the emperor as a preliminary to negotiation. In 1699
the English East India Company obtained permission to
establish a factor)' and a consulate at Canton, where they
desired to trade in tea. but trade was often interrupted by
heavy duties and extortions. The Dutch finally secured
the same privilege. No other port was open to commerce.
For half a century after 1720 all business of Europeans
was transacted through a single company of Chinese hong-
merchants, which was responsible to the Chinese Govern-
ment for the customs and duties, and responsible to no one
for its enormous profits. Though the co-hong was dis-
solved in 1 77 1, the hong merchants, by making presents to
"' 14 De Bow, Apr., 1853, p. 359. Terranora accidentally killed
a Chinese woman by dropping a pot on her head. He was finally
given up to the Chinese authorities, who strangled him outside of
the walls. [G. F. Train: An American Merchant in Europe,
Asia and Australia. N. Y. 1847.]
" Early relations of the Western Powers with China arc fully
treated in R. Montgomery Martin's " China, Political, Commercial
and Social." [Official Report, London, 1847, 2 vols.]
86 jlmcrican Relations in the Paeific and Far East. [86
the Canton niagistratcs. still contrived to maintain their
monopoly and continued their exorbitant and extortionate
prices, and in some cases refused to pay their debts. Sus-
pecting that their complaints were never allowed to reach
Peking, the British, in 1792, sent to the imperial city an
ambassador (Lord Macartney), who secured the dismissal
of the Canton viceroy who had encouraged the frauds. In
1816, they again complained of the manner of the Canton
trade and asked for new ports more convenient to the prin-
cipal tea district, but Lord Amherst, who was sent at the
head of an embassy, was not received by the Chinese sov-
ereign.
After the expiration (1833) of ^^""^ charter of the East India
Company, which had traded as a supplicant to whom the
Chinese granted favors, the Western world began its de-
mand for the admission to China of individual merchants
who desired to trade. In July, 1834, Lord Napier, with in-
structions from Lord Palmerston, arrived at Canton and
demanded trade as a right. The Chinese refused to enter
into any kind of negotiations to trade with " barbarians."
After a period of irritation growing out of opium snuiggling,
they precipitated war by issuing a decree suspending all
trade with England, who, in turn, resolved to bombard the
exclusive Asiatics and oblige them to open the country to
foreigners who desired to walk civilly through it. Unable
to cope with British gunpowder, they soon began to re-
ceive fresh light from new lamps. In the peace negotiations
of 1842, at the close of the so-called " Opium War," they
agreed to pay the expenses of the war. cede Hong Kong
to Great Britain and npvu five ports, including that of
Fuchau, which the British had especially desired. The
commercial privileges which England secured by the can-
non's mouth were soon granted to other nations who sought
them.
The United States was not slow to take advantage of the
Chinese reformed methods of intercourse. In September,
1839. when the Chinese suspected that Americans were
87] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 87
cooperating with the British, P. W. Snow, the American
consul at Canton, had declined to conform to the trouble-
some Chinese literary conventionalities which the author-
ities asked him to insert in his reply to the edicts of the im-
perial commissioner." In December, 1842, President Tyler
sent to the Senate and the House a message,"' prepared by
Webster," referring to the importance of the Sandwich
Islands and the China trade,"^ and urging an appropriation
for sending an official representative to China. A bill for
a mission was called up by the Senate at midnight on the
last day of the session of 1842-43. It met with much oppo-
sition. Benton, on the ground that we already had trade
and could never have closer relations than that with a people
so distant and peculiar, said there was no necessity for a
treaty. The appropriation was voted, however, and Edward
Everett was selected (March 3) as the first envoy."" When
the latter declined, Caleb Cushing was appointed. His in-
structions,^" signed by Webster, were designed to dispel the
Chinese delusion that other nations were dependents, and
their representatives tribute bearers. He was directed to
announce to the Chinese that the United States " pays
tribute to none and expects tribute from none," but desires
friendship and the protection of rights.
Arriving at Macao in the Brandyivine in February,
1844, he soon opened correspondence with the authorities
near Canton, who kept him in diplomatic contention until
the middle of May. Failing to induce the Oriental mind
to allow him to go to Peking, he was finally persuaded to
abandon that part of his plan. Pen and ink prevailed over
thoughts of cannon and ammunition. On the arrival of
'"H. Exec. Doc. 119, 26-1. Feb. 21, 1840, 85 pp.
^"Richardson's Messages, p. 211.
" Curtis's Webster, p. 176.
°' In 1841 the imports of the United States from China were
valued at $9,000,000, and her direct exports to China were $715,000
for domestic goods and $485,000 foreign goods.
'"' 5 Stat, at Large, p. 624.
'" Sen. Exec. Doc. 138, 28-2, Feb. 21, 1845, 9 pp.
88 American Rclofio)is in the Pacific and Far East. [88
an imperial coniniissioner, Gushing decided that it was
best " to dispose of all the commercial questions by
treaty before venturing on Peking," where the Chinese
ceremonial required ambassadors to undergo a series of
prostrations antl bumping of the head on the ground before
the footstool of the Chinese " Son of Heaven." " On July 3,
at Wang Hiya, near Alacao, he concluded with Keying '"' a
treaty of peace, amity and conmiercc. opening the five ports
to American commerce, establishing port regulations, allow-
ing American citizens the privileges of residence, cemeteries
and hospitals, conceding the right of foreigners to be tried
before their consuls; granting to the United States the
privilege of direct correspondence with the Imperial Gov-
ernment (to be transmitted by designated port oflficers), and
promising all the privileges and advantages which China
might grant to other nations."
The United States, by her peaceful but firm policy, with
no desire for Chinese territory, secured greater prestige and
concession than the British.
In 1845 Cushing returned to the United States via the
west coast of Mexico and \'era Cruz. At that time, he, like
many others, probably did not foresee the swiftly-coming
events which a few years later contributed to the necessity
of revising the treaty and enforcing its provisions more
rigidly. There were then no railways to the Pacific. Cali-
fornia was not yet an Anglo-Saxon community. Unin-
spired prophecy declared that the Pacific coast would never
be a part of the territory under the control of the United
States Government. In less than three years thereafter, we
had expanded to the Pacific, a line of American steamers
were nearly ready to run from Panama to Califorr.ia and
Oregon, and we were preparing to shorten the distance to
"Benton: Tliirty Years' View, vol. ii. H. Doc. 69. 28-2. vol. ii,
Jan. 22. 1845, 14 pp.
" Kcyinp appeared to be a man of relatively liberal view.s. He
was unfortunate in hi.s subsequent career.
" H. Doc. 69, 28-2, vol. ii, Jan. 22, 1845, M PP-
89] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 89
the Far East, and increase intercourse, by a transconti-
nental railway, and a regular, swift line of steamers between
California and China "" via the Sandwich Islands.
After Commodore Biddle had exchanged the ratified
Cushing treaty, Alexander H. Everett was sent as our rep-
resentative at Canton; but he soon died and was succeeded
by John W, Davis, who managed to obtain an interview
with the Imperial Conmiissioner at Canton, in 1848, and
organized our peculiar judicial system in China.'"
In his message of December, 1851, President Fillmore
announced that the office of Commissioner to China re-
mained unfilled — that several persons, to whom the place
had been offered, had declined because of the inadequacy ^
^* H. Rp. 596, 30-1, vol. iii, May 4, 1848. 2,7 PP-
American interests in the Pacific and the Far East had " attained
great magnitudes." In January, 1846, there were 736 American
ships (233,149 tons), and 19,560 officers and seamen engaged in the
whale fisheries. Their annual product was about $10,000,000, and
they spent about $3,000,000 in foreign ports, annually, for refresh-
ments and repairs. Besides the whaling industry, we also had 200
vessels (75,000 tons) and 5000 seamen engaged in the Pacific carry-
ing trade — exclusive of the commerce with China. These consid-
erations, induced the House committee on naval afifairs to urge
the necessity of a naval depot on the California coast, as a part of
the proposed plans for facilitating intercourse between the Mis-
sissippi river and China. The committee said: " Our commerce
with China possesses the elements of indefinite expansion."' Under
the new Chinese policy, which had released trade from the vexa-
tious monopolistic control of extortionate, capricious mandarins,
Chinese imports from foreign countries had increased from $10,-
205,370 in 1842 to $17,843,249 in 1844, and her exports from $13,-
339.750. in 1842 to $25,513,370 in 1844, exclusive of the opium trade.
By 1852, the American trade with China amounted to $18,000,000
annually; but since the beginning of our trade with China, our
imports had exceeded our exports more than $180,000,000, which
had been paid in silver. John P. Kennedy, Secretary of the Navy,
suggested that China might be induced to receive American to- *
bacco as a substitute for poisonous opium. [Sen. Exec. Doc. 49,
32-2, Feb. 16, 1853.]
"See Sen. Exec. Doc. ■/2, 31-1, Sept. 9, 1850. (Davis' report as
to consular courts.)
Mr. Davis was not able to find an American lawyer in all China.
Hong Kong, Macao, or the Philippine Islands.
90 .lnurica)i Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [90
of the salary of $6,000 to meet the expense of living. A
year later he appointed Humphrey Marshall, who accepted,
and arrived in China at the beginning of 1853, with a letter
to the emperor, and instructions to seek more satisfactory
regulation of intercourse. [See Appendix.]
The vast changes in conditions since the United States
had stood alone in the solitude of her first territorial limits,
brought new duties and greater opportunities. Then the
possession of Florida and Louisiana by European powers
was a source of anxiety to the fathers of the republic. Now,
we had annexed the neighbors whom we had formerly
feared. Then the trans-Mississippi and the trans-Rocky
territories were open to the conquest of foreigners. Now,
the Pacific alone intervened between us and Asia, and
Europe looked with amazement and admiration upon the
giant strides of the youthful but vigorous republic. While
we had been advancing by expansion, the wonders of science
had brought us into closer proximity with all of the powers
of the world. In our weak beginning, when we were em-
barrassed by the wars of Europe, Washington gave a warn-
ing against foreign entanglements, which became stereo-
typed into a political proverb, but now people began to
ask: " Can the country continue to regard itself apart from
Europe and the world?" "Would not the new conditions
require the United States to be a part of any great political
transaction which affects the history of the world? " We
were interested especially in the relations and policies
of the great colonizing nations of Europe. Feeling that
relations with the East would constitute the most important
factor in the achievements of the future, some went so far
as to advocate an Anglo-American alliance " to preserve the
•• W. H. Trcscot, whose name figured later in the foreign rela-
tions of the United States, in 1849, stating that the Russian colonial
system must be an exclusive one, and believing that the recent
British economic policy indicated that Great Britain was " willing
to share with the United States the divided allegiance of the
world " considered that an alliance should be a part of our foreign
91] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 91
integrity of China and an open door, and to arrest the in-
creasing power and growing antagonism of England and
Russia in the direction of Asia, which was now our near
neighbor. The United States, therefore, felt as much con-
cern in the affairs of the East as any nation in Europe.
The year which Marshall spent in China was one of great
political confusion. Revolution sought to remedy the
chronic diseases of the empire. Part of the political organ-
ism undertook to throw off superincumbent weight which
had been sustained for years.". Taiping '' affairs culminated.
policy. He considered it the only means to frustrate Russian de-
signs, and, at the same time, preserve the independence of China.
Spain was too feeble to interfere, and Austria and Prussia were
only " accidents and convenient outworks of other nations."
France, who (excepting England) was the only European power
possessing a basis for independent action was still the natural ally
of Russia, as she was at Tilsit. " Equally as natural," said Tres-
cot, " and equally as necessary, is the alliance between England
and the United States. . . . The future history of the world must
be achieved in the East. . . . The United States and Great Britain
by concerted action on the ocean can control the history of the
world. . . . Indeed, how can it be otherwise. We are the two
great commercial nations of modern history, . . . with the same
language and ancestry. . . . And while the interest, both of Eng-
land and the United States, lies in the monopoly of their Asiatic
trade, each Government is peculiarly adapted for its respective part
in the accomplishment of so important an end. . . . Thus allied in
an honest unity of interest, the United States becomes England's
strength, against the world, in support of her Indian colonies, and,
shut out from territorial aggrandizement themselves, the United
States, are thus by alliance with England — sharers of a common
basis for further operations."
"See an article in 15 De Bow, Dec. 1853, pp. 541-71: China and
the Indies — Our " Manifest Destiny " in the East.
^ The religious movement which developed into the Taiping re-
bellion was organized in the interior of China by Hung Sew-tsuen,
a schoolmaster, who had been influenced by Christian books and
had renounced Buddhism. His followers resisted exactions, were
persecuted, and finally arming themselves for self-defence, de-
stroyed temples, and in October, 1850, won an important victory
over the imperial soldiery. Moving northward, they conquered as
they went. In March, 1853, they captured Nanking, which became
Hung's capital in i860. In 1853, they also took Shanghai. Their
success thrilled the world, but political corruption and fanaticism
92 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [92
and the fate of the imperial dynasty was hangings in the bal-
ance. The imperial officials were too busy to attend to
foreign affairs. Marshall could obtain no conference with
a properly authorized plenipotentiary. On his arrival in
January, he sent a note to Yeh, announcing his appointment
and requesting an interview. He was far from pleased at
Yell's note of excuses.'* In his despatch to the Department
of State *' he gave vent to his indignation at being embar-
rassed in his usefulness, and announced his determination
not to submit to such discourtesy. He then went to see
Eliang (Governor of Kiang-nan and Kiang-si provinces),
who received him in person on July 4. and sent to the Em-
peror the President's letter, and Marshall's request to be
received at Peking to conduct American diplomatic rela-
tions there. He (Marshall) received acknowledgment of
the letters, but his request was not granted. His hopes were
chilled by new evasions and new reference to everything
and everybody of Canton, the theatre of perplexity, and
the usual channel for conducting diplomatic business. At
Canton, however, all of his applications were refused."
clouded their ideas of reform. They failed in their attack upon
Peking, were expelled, by European powers, from Shanghai and
Ningpo, and finally, in July, 1864, were driven from Nanking with
merciless slaughter. The overthrow of the rebellion was aided by
the leadership of Gen. Ward, an American, and Col. Gordon an
Englishman.
" Yeh and the Governor returned the following gem of literary
piquancy and Chinese diplomacy: "... We are delighted to un-
derstand that the honorable Commissioner has received the super-
intendence of trade at the five ports. We have heretofore heard
that the honorable Commissioner is mild and cven-teinpered, just
and upright. ... As to setting a time for an interview, we, the
Minister, and Governor are also exceedingly desirous of a mutual
interview, when face to face we may converse, in order to mani-
fest the good correspondence of our respective countries; but I,
the Minister, am at present at Saou-Chow Pass, and I, tlie Gover-
nor, having the superintendence of everything, have not the slight-
est leisure, and can only await the return of the Minister "
[H. Exec. Doc. 123, 33-1, p. 13.]
"Despatch No. 3, Feb. 7, 1853. H. Exec. Doc. 123. 33-1, p. 13.
" Despatches 21, 27, and 28. July 6. Aug. 26. and Aug. 30, 1853.
H. Exec. Doc. 123, 33-1, pp. 189, 240, and 248.
93] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 93
He also had much difficuky and conflict with the Ameri-
can naval commanders, whom he asked to conduct him to
northern ports, but to whom he refused to divulge his pur-
poses in going. He complained that his exposure to the
discourtesy of Commodore Aulick would leave an unfor-
tunate impression on the minds of Chinese officials and
result in the procrastination of impending questions
and the loss of important advantages in political ar-
rangements. With Perry, who relieved Aulick in the
East, and stopped at Shanghai en route for Japan,
he was no better pleased. Impatient in his desire to
present his credentials, and to insist upon an official
residence at Peking, and urging that it was a favorable time
to press China for more satisfactory relations, he asked
Perry " to leave a naval force at Shanghai to make his de-
mands and negotiations more effective.*' His proposition
was disregarded. With no vessels at his command, and no
prospects of diplomatic intercourse by the close of the year,
he was not sorry to close his mission and return to the
United States. The unreserved publication of his de-
spatches (even of his most confidential letters) in July, 1854,
gave the world an opportunity to see the extent and char-
acter of his vexations. His intention to leave China he
" Sen. Exec. Doc. 34, 33-2, pp. 23-26.
^' In a note to Perry on May 13, Marshall said: " If the Emperor
of China confronted by a formidable rebellion . . . would prefer to
hazard war with the United States to an admission of their envoy
to this court, yet will not execute his treaty obligations by ap-
pointing a proper public officer to adjust questions which arise in
the foreign relations of his government, the United States might
well desire to modify their policy with Japan until their future
relations with China were more clearly ascertained.''
In the latter part of the year, Perry who had returned to Hong
Kong from Japan, was requested by Marshall to cooperate with
him in an attempt to visit Peking to learn the exact condition of
the revolution, to insist upon commercial rights, and to assure the
" Christian Emperor " of his readiness to acknowledge the new
government; but the Commodore, stating that neither of the Chi-
nese parties was in a condition to negotiate, refused to take any
step that might be interpreted as participation in the civil war.
i>4 Aincriciui Rclatiois in the Pacific and Far East. [94
announced to Ych. who replied [January, 1854] : " 1 avail
myself of the occasion to present my compliments, and trust
that, of late, your blessings have been increasingly tranquil."
In October, 1853, Robert McLane was appointed Com-
missioner to China." His instructions *' of November 9,
from Marcy, vested him with lar^e and discretionary
powers, by which he could be prepared to meet contingen-
cies which might arise from the results of the existing revo-
lution. He was directed, in case of a crisis, to attempt to
secure unrestricted commercial intercourse — free trade, if
possible — but with no desire for exclusive privileges." He
was assured that Perry would receive instructions to coop-
erate and give such assistance as the exigencies of the
public interest might require, and at least to comply with
any request for a steamer. In view of the possible success
of the revolutionists, he was authorized to use his discre-
tion in recognizing the government dc facto and treat with
it — or, in case China should be divided under several gov-
ernments " promising stability," to negotiate treaties with
each government.
Taking the overland route to the Pacific, McLane reached
Hong Kong on March 13, 1854. Like his predecessor, he
was unsuccessful in his attempts to open diplomatic inter-
course. He found Yeh still too busy to talk." Looking at
** Robert J. Walker had accepted the Chinese mission, but finally
declined.
** Sen. Exec. Doc. 39, 36-1, vol. xi. Apr. 2Ti. i8(x). 4 pp.
** He was also given power to make a similar treaty with Corea,
Cochin China, or any other independent Asiatic power with whom
we had no treaty — and, in case Perry miplit fail, to renew efforts in
Japan.
"On Apr. 6, Yeh in reply to McLane, wrote: " Yoo .... am
delighted to learn that the Commissioner has arrived in the south
of China. ... I, the Minister, am exceedingly comforted in my
mind. As to appointing a time for presentation, I, the Minister,
am also desirous of an interview . . . . ; but just at this moment,
I the Minister, am superintending the affairs of the army in the
several provinces, and day and night have no rest. Suffer me,
then, to wait for a little leisure, when I may make selection of a
propitious day, that we may have a pleasant meeting." (Sen.
Exec. 22, 35-2, p. 19.]
95] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 95
the archives of the legation, he reported that they presented
a very humihating view of our past relations with China,
whose ofificials rendered intercourse most unsatisfactory.
Considering the experience of both England and France,
he was convinced that diplomatic intercourse could be ob-
tained with the Chinese Government only at the cannon's
mouth, but he resisted Sir John Bowring's suggestion for
uniting forces for combined action.'' Mr. Parker, secre-
tary of the legation, suggested that the Chinese officials
should be warned that such discourteous treatment would
be borne no longer, and that a remonstrance should be pre-
sented to the emperor in person — either to Heen Fung
or to Taiping.*'
Informing Yeh that he would seek some other medium
of communication, McLane soon went northward to
Shanghai,'" which had been held by the revolutionists since
the autumn of 1853, but was still annoyed by the imperial
forces. He found that American merchants were not yet
satisfied with the decision of Marshall, that suspension of
custom house control by the Imperial Government did not
annul the treaty obligation to pay duties." He sustained
" Despatch No. 3, to Marcy, Apr. 20, 1854. Sen. Exec. Doc. 22,
35-2, p. 21.
" In 1854, encouraged by the success of his Japan expedition,
Perry advocated the extension of the American policy (of stopping
exclusiveness) to Cambodia, Borneo, and especially to Formosa,
which he considered might be useful in aiding China to establish
a more liberal form of government. For the latter purpose he in-
timated that further intervention by Great Britain after the Opium:
War would have been justifiable. Opposed to any toleration of
unsocial and insolent exclusiveness, he urged that diplomatic rep-
resentatives should reside at Peking and other oriental capitals.
Looking to the future, he said: "We must protect commerce,
and prepare for events which must transpire, in the East. In the
developments of the future, the destinies of our nation must as-
sume conspicuous attitudes." [Perry: U. S. Japan Expedition,
vol. ii, pp. 173-81.]
■* Senate Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2 (vol. viii), p. 29 et seq. Despatch
Nos. 4, 5 and 6, May 4, and 21, and June 14, 1854.
" Marshall, considering that it was the duty of the United States
to protect the Chinese revenue, and that if duties were not paid
9(5 .liiicrican Rclatio)is in the Pacific and Far East. [96
the decision of Marshall, however, and awarded to the Chi-
nese the revenues due from Americans. "
In June, 1854, McLanc visited Woohoo, about 70 miles
above Nanking, and investigated the origin, purpose, and
extent of the Taiping rebellion. The insurgent leaders
appeared not to have the liberality and friendliness which
had been attributed to them by the deluded missionary
sympathizers. In exclusiveness and extraordinary pre-
tensions the chiefs exceeded the tone of the imperial au-
thorities.'^ They informed Captain Buchanan that he
might be permitted to make yearly visits to bring tribute
and bathe in the " gracious streams of the celestial
dynasty."
In October, McLane. in company with Sir John Bow-
ring, sailed northward, and after some " amphibious ad-
ventures " at the mouth of the Pei-ho, met an imperial [non-
j)lenipotentiary] commissioner in a wretched tent near
Taku, and participated in a fruitless conference which lasted
almost an entire day.'' On August 20, he had arrived at
the conclusion that if the efforts then being made should
at Shanghai, they would be levied on the goods in the interior,
had estabhshed a provisional arrangement for the payment or
guarantee of the duties. The British residents did not favor the
system, and offered no opposition to a " rebel " mob which sacked
the custom house on September 7, 1853.
'"Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, p. 112 et seq. [Despatch 7, July 7,
1854.] On Nov. 8, before the award was paid over, Marcy agree-
ing with Lord Clarendon, gave instructions to rescind the arrange-
ment as to duty obligations. Parker, the charge d'affaires was much
embarrassed by this order, and the insubordination of Mr. Mur-
phy, the .American consul. The question of paying the duties was
finally settled by Attorney-General Gushing, who decided that the
award of McLane, as an arbitrator, was obligatory. The Ghinese
difficulty in managing the revenues soon resulted in the establish-
ment of a Foreign Inspectorate of Gustoms, to supervise the du-
ties, and see that they were collected.
'"" See the " Mandatory "' enclosed in Despatch No. 6 of June 14.
1854. Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, p. 62. Also sec p. 50 et sec]., and
p. 70 ct seq.
" For Ghinese memoranda of the conference, see enclosures in
Reed to Gass. No. 33, Oct. 21, 1858. Sen. Exec. Doc. 30, 36-1, pp.
438-88 (vol. x).
97] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 97
prove unavailing, it would be necessary to abandon all
further expectation of extending commercial intercourse
by treaty, unless Great Britain and the United States should
concur in a policy of exerting a more active and decided
influence on the destiny of China.'^ In November he urged
Marcy to adopt a " more positive policy," stating that if the
Chinese emperor remained obstinate a united Anglo-
Franco-American fleet should blockade the Pei-ho, Yanste,
Min, and Canton rivers, until all the commercial privileges
demanded by the foreigners should be conceded."'
Secretary Marcy remained cool, conservative, and
careful.
McLane having returned to the United States (in De-
cember, 1854) in poor health, in the summer of 1855 Mr.
Parker was appointed commissioner. His term of service
was coincident with a period of troubles which severely
tested his amiable, religious temper. He went to China via
London, where he exchanged generalities with Lord Clar-
endon on Anglo-Saxon interests, Anglo-American alliance,
and " concurrent action and cooperation in China."
Like his predecessors, he failed to bring Yeh to a per-
sonal interview. Unable to appreciate the latter's method
of conducting the Chinese foreign ofifice, he sailed north-
ward. On September 3, while at Shanghai, he wrote
Marcy: "The contemplated plan of concurrent action on
the part of Great Britain, France and the United States
never appeared to me more wise or desirable than at this
moment." " Having no American squadron available to
accompany him to the Pei-ho, he returned (November, 1856)
to the south of China where he found American commercial
interests paralyzed by the confusion resulting from the
Arrow afifair and the British bombardment of Canton."*
^ Despatch No. 10, Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, p. 169.
^' Despatch 20, Nov. 19, 1854, Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, p. 285.
"Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, p. 921.
"Another eflfort to secure changes in treaties, which was about to
be made in conjunction with the Ministers of France and England,
was suspended by the Canton hostilities.
7
98 American Rclatiojis in the Pacific and Far East. [98
The United States was almost drawn into the conflict at
Canton. A few Americans joined the British hostile forces
and displayed the American flag. After the beginning of
the conflict, the Chinese, having suggested the withdrawal
of the American forces, became provoked because an Amer-
ican boat was sent " to sound the river in the vicinity of
the forts " and they opened fire on a boat carrying the
American flag, and belonging to one of the American ships-
of-war. Commodore Armstrong, in reply, authorized a
movement against the Barrier forts, then demanded an
apology for the insult to the flag, and finally emphasized
the demand by destroying the forts." The British believed
that the United States had become involved and would
henceforth actively cooperate.™
Parker claimed to be cautious, but on December 12" he
confidentially suggested to Marcy that the combined forces
should present themselves at the Pei-ho, and in case China
still refused to welcome envoys at Peking, as a final step
resort to reprisal by hoisting the French flag in Corea, the
British in Chusan, and the American in Formosa, and the
retention of the territories until China should accept the
terms offered, and give satisfaction for the past and a right
" Commanders Foote and Armstrong, notified by Consul O. H.
Perry that there was danger of trouble, had moved up the river
toward Canton for the purpose of protecting American citizens.
The Chinese, excited by the collision with the British, fired upon
the American vessels witliout cause. The action of tlie Americans
in destroying the Barrier forts, was not regarded by the Chinese
as an act of war, and was considered within the limits of a neutral
policy. [H. M. Wood: Fankwei, N. Y., 1859.]
" Nearly a year later, Mr. Reed wrote Secretary Cass that the
archives of the legation showed that Parker " to a certain point,
encouraged Sir John Bowring [and others] in the most extrava-
gant expectations of cooperation on our part, to the extent even
of acquisition of territory." Referring to the mischievous effects
of Parker's course he said that when the delusion was broken, and
it became understood that the extreme policy of cooi>cration was
disavowed, or discouraged, all suggestions of friendly concert on
points of common interest, which the well-known policy of the
government had authorized, were suddenly repelled. [Despatch
3, Reed to Cass, Nov. 10, 1857, Sen. Exec. Doc. 30, 36-1, vol. x,
p. 17 ] " Despatch 34, Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2.
99] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 99
understanding for the future."' He said that the occupation
of territory, as a last resort, for injuries inflicted, would be
far more humane and effective than the destruction of life
and property by bombarding forts and cities. On February
12, 1857, he again suggested the pohcy of taking Formosa.'"
He had just received a letter from Gideon Nye, Jr., who,
considering the character of the mongrel race on the island,
urged that Commodore Armstrong should take possession
of the territory and hold it in the interests of humanity and
commerce."*
Notwithstanding the attempt to involve the United States
in hostilities, the American Government remained strictly
neutral. Secretary Marcy regretted that there had not been
more caution by the Americans at Canton, and refused to
entangle the United States in a protracted struggle. " The
British Government," said he, " evidently has objects be-
yond those contemplated by the United States, and we
ought not to be drawn along with it, however anxious it may
be for our cooperation." *" Considering that there was no
obligation resting on China to negotiate at Peking, or near
there, for the revision of the treaty of 1844, which she had
agreed to revise, but without designating a place, the
Pierce administration did not believe that relations with
China warranted the " last resort " suggested by Parker.
It decided to increase the naval force in Chinese waters,
" but not for aggressive purposes." ^°
" Sen. Exec. Doc. 22 (part 2, p. 1083), 35-2.
In 1856 some urged that the United States, keeping up with Eng-
land and France, should widen the area of her national institu-
tions, maintain an imposing naval force in Chinese seas, and follow
American commerce everywhere with a show of power. [H. M.
Wood: Fankwei, or the San Jacinto in the Seas of India, China
and Japan, N. Y., 1859.] "'Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, part 2, p. 1183.
" Ibid., Exhibit G, p. 1204.
^ Instr. China, Marcy to Parker, No. 9. Feb. 2, 1857. In Sen.
Exec. Doc. 30, 36-1, vol. x, p. 4.
°* Instr. China, Marcy to Parker, No. 10. Feb. 27, 1857 [Ibid.,p.6].
In the following April Secretary Cass said: "We have of course
no political views connected with that empire." [To Lord Napier,
Apr. ID, 1857. In Sen. Exec. Doc. 47, 35-1.]
100 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [100
Secretary Cass, under the Buchanan administration, ad-
hered to the same pohcy of neutrality. In March he re-
ceived through Lord Napier a paper (dated January 9) from
Lord Clarendon inviting the United States to join the alli-
ance and participate in hostile movements against China in
order to obtain the following objects:
1. Recognition of the right to send a minister to Peking.
2. Commercial extension beyond the five ports.
3. Reduction of tarifY duties levied on domestic produce
in transit from the interior.
4. Religious freedom of all foreigners in China.
5. An arrangement for the suppression of piracy."'
6. Provision for the extension of whatever benefits might
be obtained to all other civilized powers of the earth."'
Though the President recognized all these objects as just
and expedient, and was sensible of the liberal policy of the
allied powers in disclaiming any intention to secure exclu-
sive commercial advantages for themselves, he could not
agree to cooperate in hostile demonstrations. Though he
had power to employ naval forces for defence and for protec-
tion of American citizens, he stated that a military expedi-
tion into Chinese territory could not be undertaken except
by Congress. Besides, although he was determined to ask
China for a revision of the treaty of 1844 (which contained
a clause providing for revision at the expiration of 12 years)
he could not agree that our relations would warrant a resort
to war. Secretary Cass, in his reply to Napier, said: " True
wisdom dictates moderation and discretion in attempts to
0])en China to the trade of the world." '"
In May, Mr. William B. Reed was appointed '° Envoy Ex-
*" In 1855 a detachment from an American man-of-war destroyed
the junks and burnt the depots of some pirates in Chinese waters.
[Kp. Secy, of Navy, Dec. 1855.]
" MS. " Notes " from Brit. Legation to llic Dcpartnunt. March
14. 1857-
"• Notes from tlie Department to the Brit. Leg.. Apr. 10. 1857.
"* In July 1857. Parker, having no instructions, dcchncd the in-
vitation of the Earl of Elgin to unite with him in a visit to the
lUl] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 101
traordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to China [to watch
for an opportunity to revise treaties], with instructions"
based upon a polic}' of peaceful cooperation in eflforts to
secure the objects sought by the allies/' " But on your
side/' said Cass, " efforts must be confined to firm repre-
sentations, appealing to the justice and policy of the Chi-
nese authorities, and [in case of failure] leaving to your
own Government to determine upon the course to be
adopted. . . . The United States is not at war with China,
and only desires lawful commerce '" and the protection of its
citizens." The instructions explicitly stated that the United
States had no motives of territorial aggrandizement or ac-
quisition of political power in China.'* Recognizing the
potent influence of commerce alone as a means of introduc-
ing progressive civilization and national improvement, Cass
said: '"With the domestic institutions of China we have
no political concern." Having no reason to believe that
either of the contestants in the Chinese civil war would be
more ready than the other to extend commercial inter-
course, he directed Reed to use discretion in all that related
to the internal conflict. To provide for possible contin-
north of China. In August, learning that Mr. Reed had been ap-
pointed to succeed him, he returned to the United States.
'^ Instr. China, Cass to Reed, No. 2, May 30, 1857. In Senate
Exec. Doc. 47, 35-1, vol. xii, Apr. 20. 1858. (9 pp.)
'^ Reed was instructed that, in case Russia secured the reception
of an accredited minister, there was no reason why he should not
have the same friendly relations with the latter as with the Brit-
ish and French representatives.
'^American citizens had not enjoyed "all the proper accommo-
dations in obtaining homes and places of business," as provided by
treaty. Local authority had interfered to prevent Chinese inhabi-
tants from granting such rights, and had neglected to examine
American complaints as to Chinese frauds or debts. They had not
sufficiently enforced the guarantee of security for persons and prop-
erty. The Chinese regulations reducing the true standard of the
American coin had also injured trade.
'* It was suggested that Mr. Reed, while watching for a favor-
able time to secure revision of treaties, might even have an oppor-
tunity to serve as a medium of communication between belliger-
ents, and prevent war.
102 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [102
gcncies the Chinese squadron was increased and the move-
ment of forces placed as far as possible under Mr. Reed's
control.
Mr. Reed, on reaching China, found the trade of all na-
tions suspended by the blockade of the Canton river, and
the imperial authorities still busy with the Taiping insur-
rection. He soon discovered that it was not a favorable
time to negotiate for the revision of treaties." On Novem-
ber ly he wrote to the tranquil Yeh, announcing his arrival
and requesting an interview. Before receiving a reply, he
wrote again, on November 28, stating that the United
States, although not a party to the existing hostilities, was
determined to secure redress for wrongs which American
citizens had sufTered at the hands of Chinese authorities —
and that friendly feeling could not possibly continue if China
should withhold the courtesies of intercourse.'" On Novem-
ber 24, Yeh replied that, although he had much desire for
an interview, there was no place where to hold it, since the
British had burned the houses near Canton. As to the
treaty, he said it had " proved satisfactory " and needed no
alterations. In December, he again wrote that the Ameri-
can merchants and citizens having been treated with cour-
tesy and kindness in China, could have no wrongs to re-
dress." He expressed confidence that Reed, being clear-
headed, would not act as Parker, whom he suggested had
been recalled for his conduct. On December 12, Reed, re-
gretting that no opportunity was given for an interview,
the result of which might be beneficial to both nations, re-
plied: "The time is not far distant when your excel-
lency may be sorry you have not seen me. . . . The treaty
of 1844 must be revised. . . . The time has come when the
United States, the greatest nation of the Western world,
" Message of President Buchanan Dec. 8, 1857.
" In Despatch No. 36, Reed to Cass, Dec. 15, 1857. Sen. Exec.
Doc. 30, 36-1, vol. X. pp. 49-53-
" Yeh to Reed, Dec. 8, 1857. Enclosure in Reed's No. 39 to
Cass, Dec. 28.
103] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 103
must be treated on terms of equality with China, the oldest
civilized nation of the East, and I have come in a concilia-
tory spirit to claim that right." In response, Yeh wrote
(December i8): "From this it is plainly to be perceived
that your excellency well understands the position of
things, and the heartfelt regrets which you express have
greatly tranquillized my feelings. . . . The despatches of
.... Parker sometimes had remarks . . . not agreeable
and courteous, but I never attached much importance to
them in my mind. . . . Our two countries are like two good
friends ... in every respect on the best of terms." " Here
the correspondence ended with the arrow of controversy
still in the quiver. Such skillfully turned phrases and such-
masterly inactivity were difificult to meet by any form of
hterary retaliation known to the Western mind.
The crisis at Canton was rapidly approaching. By the
close of the year all of the forts were taken. Early in Jan-
uary, 1858, Reed wrote that the city was completely in the
hands of the allies." Yeh had been captured and impris-
oned on a war-vessel. At his house were found many docu-
ments relating to foreign affairs (including the original
Cushing treaty), which indicated that the Foreign Office of
China had practically been at Canton for many years.*"
On February 13, Yeh was sent to Calcutta for safe keeping.
Having disposed of the tranquil commissioner, the powers
prepared to urge their demands upon the Peking Govern-
ment. Reed had come to the conclusion that vigorous
action was necessary to secure redress. While suggesting
'* Enclosure in Despatch 39, Reed to Cass, Dec. 28, 1857.
" " The Western powers," said Reed, " must give up the dream
of dealing with China as a nation to which the ordinary rules
apply." [Despatches, No. 3, Jan. 4, 1858. Sen. Exec. Doc. 30,
36-1, vol. X, p. 86.]
"" Despatches, No. 5, Reed to Cass (Macao, Jan. 26, 1858). After
learning more of these documents, which reflected the foreign
policy of the Imperial Government, Reed wrote: " Decisive ac-
tion is necessary with the ofScials who rule this people." [Des-
patches, No. 8, Feb. 4, 1858.]
104 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [104
that the Chinese indebtedness of $800,000 to the United
States might be reahzed by treaty, or by detention from
duties, he was confident that the only sure method of obtain-
ing redress was peremptory demand enforced by the block-
ade of ports as a means of reprisal."' By invitation, he coop-
erated with the allied powers and Russia in addressing
communications to Peking. In his appeal to China he
stated that the United States, having most friendly relations
with Russia, France and Great Britain, and desiring the
integrity of China to remain inviolate by the terms of re-
dress and peace, was ready to extend friendly offices."' In
this appeal he was proud to unite, because he considered it
" entirely consistent with the peaceful attitude we have tried
to occupy in the East." "^ He also considered that under his
instructions he could proceed with the allied fleets to the
north, and try the effect of the appearance of force near the
seat of the Imperial Government. Desiring to provide for
a contingency in which China should refuse to negotiate
or resort to evasions, he asked to be invested with power to
resort to measures of coercion for securing redress."'
The Department of State approved Reed's course in join-
ing the powers in writing the notes to the Chinese em-
peror, but stated that the United States could not join in a
continuation of coercive measures by resort to arms — at
least, not yet."'
The notes to Peking having failed to produce the desired
result, the powers decided to use more effective measures
by an advance toward the imperial capital. Reed sug-
gested that the United States should accompany the allied
fleet with all of her available force, to show the Oriental
"Despatches, No. 7, Feb. i, 1858. Sen. Exec. Doc. 30. ,36-1, p.
104.
" For Reed's letter to the Chinese Government, see Sen. E.xec.
Doc. 30, 36-1, vol. X, pp. 171-75.
" Despatclies, No. 9, Reed to Cass, Feb. 13, 1858. Ibid., p. 125.
" The President liad already asked Congress for such power.
'^Instructions, China, No. 11, Cass to Reed, Apr. 28, 1858.
105] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 105
mind that she was not compelled to abstain from hostilities
through any want of means/" In May, while preliminary
operations were pending, he held conferences with Chinese
commissioners, pursuing a course concerning which Lord
Elgin guardedly expressed his dissent and disapproval."
He sailed with the allied fleet in their advance toward Pe-
king, and was an observer of the hostilities which he had
tried to prevent.*^ After the fleet had captured the Taku forts,
enabling it to steam up the Pei-ho toward Peking and com-
pel China to yield concessions, he secured all the advantages
which had been forced by ball and bayonet. After several
interviews with the Chinese commissioners at Tientsin, on
June i8, he wrote: " I have to-day signed a treaty." In
the negotiations, the two great points of difficulty were in
regard to the permanent residence of a minister at Peking,
and the navigation of the rivers. -
The treaty, which Mr. Reed negotiated, renewed the
extra-territoriality clause for consular judicial jurisdiction
in suits against United States citizens in China, granted the
right of direct correspondence with the privy council, per-
mitted the minister of the United States to visit and sojourn
at Peking for the transaction of business once each year,
secured more liberal commercial regulations and gave access
to new ports and to the interior of the country.** On No-
** Despatch No. ii, Reed to Cass, Shanghai, Apr. 3, 1858. A few
days later, Reed seeing little chance of being able to accomplish
anything, expressed a wish to return. On June 25 Cass replying
that the President assented to his urgent wish, urged him to stay
until there was no reasonable hope of prompt accommodation.
[Instr. China, No. 12, Cass to Reed.]
" Despatch No. 17, Reed to Cass, May 15, 1858. Sen. Exec. Doc.
30, 36-1, vol. X, p. 297.
** The Russian and American squadrons were given orders to
abstain from hostilities — except in cases of extremity.
** On the treaty and its effects, see Reed's despatch to Cass, No.
2i, June 30, 1858. Sen. Exec. Doc. 30, 36-1, pp. 351-63, and 363-70;
also despatch No. 29, July 29, 1858. Ibid., 371 et seq.
For further remarks on the treaty, and philosophic generaliza-
tions regarding the nature of the Chinese government and its for-
eign relations, the real authority in the political system, the Chi-
lOG American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [106
vember 8, he negotiated a convention"" for settling the claims
of American citizens, by which China afterwards paid the
United States $735,238.97."'
The English and French treaties of 1858 each contained
a clause providing for an exchange at Peking, and the en-
voys, Sir Frederick Bruce and M. de Bourbillon, refused to
listen to Chinese officials who were sent to Shanghai to dis-
suade them from going to Peking.'" Arriving at the mouth
of the Pei-ho in June, 1859, they found the river obstructed
by improved forts at Taku and, by chains which the Chinese
refused to remove. The allied fleet of nineteen vessels was
under the command of the English admiral, Hope. Upon
learning of the obstructions in the river, Admiral Hope
made an imperative demand that they be removed at once.
This the Chinese refused, and Bruce, hoping that the matter
was susceptible of an amicable adjustment, attempted to
enter into negotiations for the removal of the booms so
that he might be permitted to pursue his journey to Peking.
Almost coincident with the arrival of the British and
French, two American vessels, under Commander Josiah
Tatnall, escorting the American Minister, John E. Ward,
reached the waters of the Pei-ho. Ward had received the
assent of the Chinese commissioners at Shanghai to go to
the imperial capital, and had resolved to proceed until
stopped by a force which could not be overcome by that
under Tatnall by which he was escorted. Persuaded by
nese negotiations, and the influence of the conduct of foreigners,
see Reed's despatch No. 31 to Cass, Sept. 4, 1858. Ibid., p. 429
et seq.
For illustrations of Chinese polity, and characteristics, see D.
Wells Williams's despatch No. 2 to Cass, Jan. 28, 1859. Ibid., p.
54.S.
" Despatches, Nos. 35 and ::i7, Reed to Cass, Nov. 9. and Nov.
10. 1858. Ibid., pp. 493-528.
•' After the settlement of the claims by a United States commis-
sion, a surplus remained. In 1885 a balance of $453,400.90 was re-
turned to the Chinese minister at Washington.
•'Sec 14 Ward to Cass June 13, 1859. Sen. Exec. Doc. 30, 36-1,
pp. 569-85.
107] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 107
Tatnall, on June 25 he boarded an American chartered
steamer, which passed the vessels of the alHes, but grounded
on a mud flat when within half a mile of the forts. On the
next day, after the American vessel had been floated out of
the line of fire, the allies began the attack on the yellow-
flag-crowned Taku forts and attempted to clear the river,
but the Chinese, with more artillery than had been sus-
pected, opened a heavy fire which did serious damage.
Throughout the fight the American force was nominally
neutral. But Tatnall, when a young British officer in-
formed him that Admiral Hope was seriously wounded, and
intimated that American assistance would relieve the situa-
tion, turning to Ward, said: " I must either help Hope or
return to the Powhatan. I can't stand here and see them
shot to pieces. . . . Blood is thicker than water." He pro-
ceeded to extend his sympathy, and despite the protests of
fellow-officers, assisted in landing men from the allied fleet
to storm the forts. When the landing party was cut to
pieces he sent boats to aid them to return to their vessels."
After the fight made it evident he could not reach Peking
with the French and English, Ward, in accordance with
treaty provisions, opened negotiations for means of con-
veyance overland." In a yellow cart, he started toward the
imperial city, and on August 16, without force, secured the
ratification of the treaty."
" Sen. Exec. Doc. 30, pp. 585-91. 15 Ward to Cass, July 4, 1859.
** Ibid., pp. 591-94. 16 Ward to Cass, July 10, 1859.
*' Ibid., p. 594 et seq. 17 Ward to Cass, Aug. 20, 1859. Ward
landed at Pei-t'ang, north of the mouth of the Pei-ho, and was
taken to Peking by carts and by boats, over which floated a yellow
penant with the words: "Tribute bearer from the United States."
The imperial commissioners informed him that it was necessary
to have an audience with the emperor before the treaty could be
exchanged, but agreed to require of him only one-third of the
usual number of kneelings (three) and touchings of the head on the
ground (nine) required of envoys. Ward replied that he knelt
only to God, and refused to bow except as he would to the Presi-
dent of the United States. The commissioners then arranged a
plan for avoiding the formalities, but the emperor insisted that he
lOS American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [108
The Giinese continued to oppose the treaties after they
had been ratified, and endeavored to prevent their execu-
tion." In i860 British and French forces, having destroyed
the defences of tlie Pei-ho river, took possession of the im-
perial city and induced the opening of the new ports of
Nin-Chwang, Tung-Chan, Tai-wan (in Formosa), Chan-
Chau. Kiang-Chau and (later) Tientsin. Russia, taking
occasion to settle long-standing questions, obtained from
China the region north of the Amoor and a tract along the
coast of Manchuria below 43°.
Burlingame, whom Seward sent as United States minister
to China in June, 1861, with instructions to lend no aid or
countenance to the Taiping rebellion, but to consult with
English and I*>ench ministers, desired the treaty powers
to agree on the neutrality of China, to secure order in tlpe
treaty ports,"' give their moral support to the Chinese party
which was in favor of order, to encourage the adoption of
progressive reforms and make an effort to substitute diplo-
matic action for force. His ideas met with the approval of
the representatives of Great Britain, France and Russia.
Some foreigners, however, advocated alienation of Chinese
must touch either the knee or the fingers to the ground, and no
audience was arranged. The ratified treaties were unceremoniously
exchanged at Pei-t'ang where Ward embarked for Shanghai.
A. A. Hayes, in an article in the Atlantic Monthly for May, 1S87,
says that it has been our policy to " crawl behind the British guns,
and come forward at the end of war with our bills for lost dressing-
gowns, pipes, slippers and peace of mind."
•* While an Anglo-French war against China was impending in
Feb.. i860. President Buchanan agreed that the United States
should pursue the same policy as that outlined by Russia.
*' In several cases American naval forces had aided in preserving
order. In. August, 1859, during a disturbance which arose among
the Chinese population at Shanghai on account of alleged kidnap-
ping of " coolies " for a French merchant vessel, Captain Nichol-
son, at the request of the United States consul, landed part of his
crew of the Mississippi, but order was restored and no collision
occurred. [Rp. Secy, of Navy, Dec, 1859.] In June, i860, during
a fight Ijetween the Canton Chinchew men, Commander Berrien,
at ref|uest of Consul Gouverneur, sent an armed boat to protect
American residents.
109] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — China. 109
territory at the principal treaty ports and exclusive jurisdic-
tion by England; and others, though well-meaning, excited
the opposition of the Chinese by pressing the question of
constructing railways and telegraphs.
In 1868, Burlingame, as minister plenipotentiary of
China, negotiated a treaty with the United States favoring
the territorial integrity of the empire, exempting persons
from persecution for religious faith, acknowledging the
right of voluntary emigration,*" and confirming the previous
consular jurisdiction. Though Secretary Fish thought the
United States should have additional concessions, and that
there should be a moderation of the restrictions which fet-
tered commerce, he had no desire to embarrass the Chinese
Government.'"
In her subsequent relations with China the United States
has continued to be non-aggressive, modest and friendly.
She has continued to adhere to a policy of cooperation with
the other powers upon the principle of native independence,
an open door, and equality of opportunity for all the powers
concerned. Notwithstanding her Chinese exclusion laws.
** The United States had aided China to suppress the Coolie
trade, but had found it very difficult to prevent the emigration of
Chinese under false pretences, so long as they were prohibited from
leaving the country freely. [See Sen. Exec. Doc. 22, 35-2, p. 657.]
"^ In 1870 President Grant concurred with the opinion of Ger-
many that the combined action of the powers should end piracy in
Chinese waters. In 1871, when there were unsettled questions
growing out of Chinese opposition to Christianity, some urged
measures that would teach China a lesson which she would long
remember. In 1867-69 there had been local outrages against for-
eigners. A crisis was reached by the massacre at Tientsin.
France asked redress. China prevaricated and delayed, then
promised to pay an indemnity, and finally refused to pay, de-
manded the abolition of schools for the education of females, and
insisted that males should not be taught doctrines opposed to
those of Confucius. She also desired to consider missionaries as
Chinese subjects, and to prevent the access of women to the em-
pire in that capacity. The Nation (Aug. 17, 1871) urged that the
United States, though not engaged in religious propagandism,
should not hesitate to use force, or to unite with other powers, if
necessary, to induce China to recede from her position.
110 Aincrican Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [110
she has always stood well at Peking. Her efiforts in be-
half of an open door are regarded as distinctly in the
interest of the integrity of the Chinese Empire. Her influ-
ence in the Orient has been greatly increased by the occu-
pation and acquisition of the Philippines. In case the other
powers, by their rivalry and spheres of influence in China,
should attempt a policy of partition, she probably would
not allow treaty rights and general interests to be sacrificed
to such schemes of aggrandizement. She might even call
in the Monroe doctrine in defence of her course.
Secretary Hay, on entering upon the duties of Secretary
of State, saw that the inevitable retention of the Philippines
would enable the United States to secure her policy in
China and the East. After signing the treaty of Paris, he
took steps to obtain from foreign powers, having " spheres
of influence " in China, a recognition of our treaty rights
to an open door. Some of the powers intimated that instead
of a written assurance they Avould allow the United States
a " sphere of influence," but Hay refused to participate in
the partition policy. While avoiding an alliance with
England or a treaty with any of the powers respecting a
policy in China, he has insisted that the foreign powers,
by treaties with each other and with China, should give a
written guarantee of an open door.
In the recent Chinese crisis, while cooperating with the
allies in the advance against Peking, to protect the foreign
legations, the United States has had no territorial designs.
She desires an open door to the trade of all China, and not
a restricted sphere of influence over any part of it. She
consistently strives for the larger field of commercial oppor-
tunity unlimited by territorial boundaries. If. through her
prestige as a territorially disinterested power, she can pre-
vent partition, restore peace to the Empire, and be assured
of the protection of American rights and lives, she will have
the reward or compensation which comes from the per-
formance of duty by a necessary activity which has left our
traditions unendangered.
Ill] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — Corea. Ill
Corea/"" — Corea, with a policy of exclusion and inclu-
sion, remained for ages in a state of seclusion. About the
beginning of 1868, Frederick Jenkins, an American, who
had served as interpreter at the United States consulate
at Shanghai, sailed to Corea on the General Sherman with
an expedition which he had organized to rob the tombs of
the deceased Corean sovereigns as a means of securing a
ransom. The conduct of some of the crew on landing
excited the Coreans to kill eight of them and destroy their
vessel. The Corean Government, desiring to explain the
circumstances connected with the affair, and contemplating
the expediency of securing a treaty of friendship and com-
merce, in April, 1868, sent commissioners to Mr. Seward,
the United States consul-general at Shanghai, for consulta-
tion.
After considerable correspondence, and with the assur-
ance from the Peking Government that Corea's tributary
relation to China did not prevent her from making treaties,
F, F. Low, United States Minister to China, accompanied
by Mr. Seward and Rear-Admiral Rodgers, with a squadron
of five vessels, went to Corea in April, 1871, by instructions
from Washington, and made an attempt to negotiate a con-
vention securing rescue and protection to our shipwrecked
mariners and property."" They arrived in the Salu river
April 25, and on May 29, in a friendly manner, informed the
officials of their purpose to continue up the river to make
surveys. The officials made no objection to the surveys,
but said the king was averse to making treaties. On June i
several surveying vessels were fired upon from forts, which
they soon silenced. The Coreans stubbornly refusing to
offer an apology, on June 10 an expedition of nearly 1000
men, sent to avenge the insult, destroyed forts and batteries
and killed 253 Coreans, who were then glad to fall back.
'°"W. E. Griffis: Corea: the hermit nation. 1882.
"' President's Message of Dec. 1871, and accompanying docu-
ments.
'"^ Pamphlet at Navy Department, on " Expedition to Corea,
1871."
112 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [113
Before leaving. Low made another attempt to open nego-
tiations with the Government, but the letter to the king was
returnetl unopened, and he was informed that no one dare
convey his letter to Seoul. Rodgers, after further efforts
appeared useless, went to Chefoo to await orders from the
United States. Though the expedition had only contem-
plated peaceful negotiations, some hoped the powers would
take united action against this warlike people; but the Wash-
ington Government, seeing no hope of accomplishing any-
thing without a display of force, decided to postpone further
negotiations.
After the bloodless revolution of 1874, which deposed a
tyrannical usurping ruler, the Coreans became more inter-
ested in foreign nations and better acquainted with their
policies; and, after a war with Japan, which opened several
ports to Japanese conmierce, notwithstanding ancient laws,
they began to visit other countries. Secretary Freling-
huysen, seeing favorable conditions for renewing negotia-
tions, and considering that the independence of Corea was
regarded as established, resolved again to make an efTort
to obtain a treaty with the land of the Morning Calm, and
intrusted the delicate mission to Admiral Shufeldt, who. on
May 22. 1882, concluded a treaty securing the opening of
certain ports to our commerce, aid and protection to our
vessels and seamen, and safety to our citizens while in
Corea. Lucius H. Foote, who, in May, 1883, became the
first United States minister to Corea, made a favorable im-
pression as to the friendly purposes of the American gov-
ernment, and relations since have been cordial and har-
monious.
For 2000 years Corea has had a government based on
the- spoils system. In the almost thirty centuries during
which she has patiently played a negative part, trying to
steer between the Sc\lla of China and the Charybdis of
japan, she has been buried beneath a mass of worn-out.
alien (Chinese) ideals — legal, religious and social — which
have almost crushed her spontaneity. She cannot be ex-
113] Unlocking the Gates of the Orient — Corea. 113
hiimed, disinterred, and reclaimed without a process of
education. In the riot of December, 1884, some of the Hb-
erals inaugurated a hurricane of reform which lasted for
forty-eight hours, but they failed in the attempt to condense
centuries of evolution into a few hours/"^ The need of
reforms in the administration and finances of Corea fur-
nished an occasion for the events which caused the recent
Chino-Japanese war, since which a reaction has largely
transferred to Russia the influence previously exerted by
Japan in Corea; but Japan expects to be a dominant force
in guiding the destiny of both Corea and China.
"^Foreign Relations. 1885. Percival Lowell: "The coup d'etat
in Corea." Atlantic Monthly, vol. Iviii, 1886.
CHAPTER VIII.
AMERICANIZATION OF HAWAII.
The interests which the United States suddenly acquired
in CaHfornia, the development of Oregon, and the prospects
of closer communication with Asia, increased the import-
ance of the earlier American policy to prevent foreign colo-
nization or control of the Hawaiian Islands, where Ameri-
can elements had predominated from the earliest days of
foreign interests there, and led the American Government
to contemplate the annexation of the islands as a possible
contingency necessary to American interests.
American influence in the islands was considerable by
1820. In March of that year, missionaries from Boston
arrived in the Thaddeus to begin their religious and hu-
manitarian work, and in the following September President
Monroe appointed John C. Jones as United States agent,
for commerce and seamen at Hawaii, to make reports to the
Department of State. The missionaries were hospitably
received and found conditions favorable for their labors.
Kamehameha I., the " Napoleon of the Pacific," who, by
1795, had practically asserted his control over all the
septinsular kingdom, had died in 1819, leaving a consoli-
dated kingdom to his son Liholiho, who succeeded him as
Kamehameha II. The will of the chief was still almost
absolute. There had not yet developed a code of laws, or
government regulations, courts of justice, or the acknowl-
edged right of persons to own jiroperty. Neither was there
yet a written or systematized language. P>ut the people
were preparing to be transformed by the institutions of
civilization. Under the influence of foreigners, they be-
came infidels to the old religion. After disobeying old
115] The Americanization of Hawaii. 115
religious rites they found that their health was as good as
before. Under Liholiho, " tabu " and idolatry were abol-
ished by law/
The missionaries, who soon exerted considerable influence
with the native government, were opposed by foreigners,
who finally led the king into dissipation and debts which
caused him to increase taxes. Richard Charlton, the
British consul-general at Hawaii, was accused of placing
himself at the head of the lawless and depraved class of for-
eigners, and trying to induce the chiefs to make no laws with-
out the approval of the British Government." He showed
an open antagonism to the American missionaries and
American influence on the islands, tried to organize the dis-
cordant elements into an anti-missionary party, and, later,
he favored the introduction of a rival religion by French
Catholic priests, who were appointed by the Pope in 1826.
The Hawaiian Government remained friendly to the Prot-
estant missionaries, and in April, 1831, issued a decree ban-
ishing the Jesuits; it was inclined to persecute those who
had embraced the Roman faith, though the severity of the
persecution was lessened by a visit of the Potomac in 1832.'
Toward the close of 1832 political troubles increased. The
^ J. J. Jarvis: History of the Sandwich Islands.
* In 1823 Liholiho, suspecting Russia of having designs, decided
to ask England and the United States for protection and visited
London, where he died, and from whence his remains were con-
veyed to Honolulu in the Blonde under the command of Lord
Byron. [G. A. Byron: Voyage of the Blonde to the Sandwich
Islands, 1824-5. London, 1826.] George IV. promised protec-
tion against foreign aggression. British influence had long be-
fore shown itself. In February, 1793, Vancouver, returned to the
islands and endeavored to secure an end to the internal dissensions
that were reducing the population. A year later, a meeting of the
great chiefs decided to cede Hawaii to England as a protectorate,
and Mr. Puget went ashore, hoisted the British colors and took
possession.
' About the same time a writer in the London Metropolitan
Magazine proposed that the British Government should take pos-
session of the islands as a matter of expediency. [J. N. Reynolds:
Voyage of the Potomac, p. 416.]
IIG American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [IIG
young King Kamehamcha III., partly through the influence
of Charlton, had thrown off the restraints of his elders and
abandoned himself to dissipation and debauchery. He asso-
ciated with the licentious, and delegated his royal power to
Kaomi, an unprincipled Tahitian. Shameless dances were
revived, family ties were sundered, and drunkenness ruled.
Kinau, the eldest sister of Kamehamcha I., stood for de-
cency, but she could not obtain the ear of the king."
In July, 1839, Captain Laplace, of the French frigate
Artcmise, forced Kamehamcha III. to allow the return of
the priests, the entire freedom of Catholic worship, and the
introduction of intoxicating liquors into the islands. Many
priests now came, and trouble soon arose between them
and the Protestants. French and English grievances con-
tinued.
In 1842 a French vessel arrived with new demands, to
which the king replied that he had sent an embassy to
France to negotiate a treaty. The English consul, Charl-
ton, also presented a list of grievances,' causing the king
(July, 1842) to ask for his removal and to send a communi-
cation to the United States, England and France to nego-
tiate new treaties and obtain a guarantee of independence
and neutrality.
Notwithstanding the reports of progress in the islands
and the increase of American interests there, the United
States sought no exclusive control or advantage, but de-
sired that American rights should be respected and guarded.
Webster, in his reply to the Hawaiian commissioners, stated
that the government of Hawaii should not be an object of
interference by foreign powers," but advised them to begin
diplomatic operations in England.
* Laura Fish Judd: Honolulu, etc., 1828-61. N. Y., 1880.
' Charlton had a title to some Hawaiian lands, and claimed the
right to transfer it, but the courts of Hawaii decided against him
and attached his land. Though the Government made no attempt to
eject him from the lands, he claimed that his rights had been in-
fringed, and complained to the British Government.
• Wilkes, who visited the islands on his exploring expedition,
said: " Fortunately for the Sandwich Islands they have no port
117] The Americanization of Hawaii. 117
Desiring to defeat the objects of the embassy, Charlton
secretly went to England, leaving a hostile deputy, Simp-
son, whom the king refused to recognize until he was forced
to do so by Lord George Paulet, of the British navy, who
arrived February lo, 1843. threatened the authorities, took
possession of the islands under the British flag,' seized all
lands claimed by Charlton, abrogated laws against vice,
and raised an army of natives. The king, after executing
the forced cession, wrote President Tyler, protesting and
asking the United States to interpose.
The United States, when informed of this affair by the
communication from the Hawaiian king, declared that no
power ought to take possession of the islands either as a
conquest or for colonization.' She took steps, through
Everett, to notify England that the United States would
regret if England or France should adopt any other than a
pacific, just and conservative course toward Hawaii. The
attitude of the United States doubtless influenced England
and France to recognize Hawaiian independence and (No-
vember 28, 1845) to enter into a joint declaration agreeing
never to take possession even under a protectorate. Eng-
land promised to remove Charlton, and a few years later
France restored $20,000 that had been extorted by the
French captain in 1839.
that is defensible against a strong naval force, and therefore their
importance will be comparatively small in a political point of view.
No foreign power, in fact, could well hold them without great ex-
pense and difficulty. . . . They will no doubt be left in the enjoy-
ment of their neutrality. ... It is the interest of the United States
that they should maintain the neutrality that they seek to estab-
lish." [C. Wilkes: Voyage Around the World, 1838-43. N. Y.,
1851.]
' In July, however, the British admiral, Thomas, arriving, dis-
approved the acts of his ambitious subordinate, refused to accept
the cession of the islands, and proceeded to restore the king.
Although France had recently seized the Marquesas, the British
Government disavowed the seizure and cession of Hawaii.
* On June 13, 1843, Legare wrote Everett that the United States
might feel justified in interfering by force to prevent Hawaii fall-
ing, by conquest, into the hands of one of the great powers of
Europe.
118 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [118
In March, 1843, the United States Government, feeling
the need of a competent medium of communication and of
closer and more friendly relations, appointed George Brown,
of Massachusetts, as a diplomatic official. The latter was
well received, but soon had occasion to insist that Americans
accused of crime should have the right of trial by a jury
composed entirely of foreigners, and to protest that the
British treaty of February, 1844, discriminated against the
United States. He was recalled at the request of the Ha-
waiian king. Mr. A. Ten Eyck, who succeeded him in
1846, with instructions to make a treaty, continued to in-
sist upon the right of trial by a jury of foreigners until, in
1848, feeling that relations were on the point of rupture,
and that President Polk had neglected him, he resigned,
and was succeeded by Charles Eames. Before the latter
reached Hawaii, Mr. J. J. Jarvis and Secretary Clayton, at
Washington, had concluded a treaty of friendship, com-
merce, navigation and extradition (December 20, 1849),
which was ratified by the United States Senate the following
February, exchanged in August and proclaimed in No-
vember.'
Foreign consular and diplomatic representatives con-
tinued to threaten interference with internal affairs of
Hawaii. England revived old claims. The French consul
reopened old disputes and presented new ones, causing the
king to ask his recall. In August, 1849, ^ French frigate
arrived to support the demands of the consul. Against the
urgent protests of English and American consuls, a French
force, under pretext that provisions of the French-Hawaiian
treaty had been broken, seized buildings, destroyed prop-
erty, blockaded the harbor and took the king's yacht. The
admiral had notified the United States consul, Turrell. that
the French desired only reparation, and had no designs
•Andrew H. Allen: Relations between the United States and
tlie Hawaiian Islands 1820-93. [Sen. Exec. Doc. 77, 52-2, Feb. 17,
119] The Americanization of Hawaii. 119
for occupation or protectorate, and he had neither lowered
the Hawaiian flag nor raised that of France. The king,
through Turrell, again invoked the good offices of the
United States to maintain his sovereignty, and sent J. J.
Jarvis as special commissioner to procure the friendly
mediation of President Fillmore. Secretary Clayton, un-
certain whether France would adopt the same policy with
Hawaii as with Tahiti, wrote Rives at Paris that, although
the Hawaiian Islands were not coveted by the United States,
their relations were such that the United States could never
with indifference allow them to pass under the dominion or
exclusive control of any other power. Later, the French
Government disavowed the action of its admiral, but on
learning that a commission had gone to the United States
and England to make new treaties, sent out a counter com-
mission to renew the old demands. A French vessel arrived
December 13, 1850, and remained three months to harass
and interfere.
In March, 1851, Severance wrote Webster that the popu-
lar representative body recently elected by the native votes,
and also the executive and judiciary, were composed largely
of natives of the United States; that the king and his gov-
ernment, fearing France, were privately considering the sub-
ject of annexation to the United States, and that a United
States ship-of-war should be present to prevent the fear of
disturbances which had operated to injure American com-
merce, immigration and land-purchases. He said that
the Americans who had opposed the government and the
missionaries, on account of laws against licentiousness and
drunkenness, were decreasing in number, and would join
the missionaries in rallying under the United States flag
should it once be raised. Judging from foreign relations
and the precarious state of the king's health, he was uncer-
tain whether the native government could last long. See-
ing the value of Hawaii, with her public lands and no public
120 American Relations in the Pacifie and Far East. [120
debt, and with proposed steam communication with San
Francisco, which could be connected with Washington by
telegraph, he hoped that Webster would not object to a
political connection on account of distance.
On March lo, 1851, the king and privy council of Hawaii
issued a proclamation placing Hawaii under the protection
of the United States, and on June 21 the provisional ces-
sion was adopted by both Houses of the Hawaiian Par-
liament. Webster, however, on July 14, directed Severance
to return the deed to the Hawaiian Government. He still
advocated the past policy of favoring the independence of
the islands, at least until pressed by some necessity in which
events should occur to give the subject a new aspect and
an increased importance. Referring to Americans who
were settling in Hawaii, he informed Severance that they
thereby ceased to be citizens of the United States, saying:
" You will, therefore, not encourage in them, nor indeed in
any others, any idea or expectation that the islands will be-
come annexed to the United States. All this will be judged
of hereafter as circumstances and events may require by the
government at Washington." The United States, however,
faithful to its original assurances, scrupulously regarded
the independence of the islands and was unwilling to con-
sent that European powers should occupy them or en-
force unjust demands inconsistent with their independence.
The Nav)- Department received instructions to keep the
Pacific armament in a position requisite for the preservation
of the honor and dignity of the United States and the safety
of the government of Hawaii.
France, checked in her plans, expressed surprise at the
American attitude, and disclaimed any intention of im-
proper interference, or of assuming sovereignty in the
islands.
The increasing American influence in Hawaii '" excited
" FeelinR that the United States had become an arbiter in the
affairs of the Pacific, a writer in De Bow's Mapazine, in November,
1852, asked whether Hawaii, who requested our protection, was
not as necessary to the United States as Cuba.
121] The Arncricanisation of Hawaii. 121
the jealousy of both France and England. In September,
1853, Secretary Marcy, while disclaiming any intention of
the United States to exercise exclusive control, indicated
that she would not allow other powers to exact special polit-
ical or commercial privileges, or to establish a protectorate
over the islands." In the following December, while hop-
ing to acquire Lower California, he informed the American
minister to France that the existing condition of the islands
made it appear inevitable that they must come under the
control of the United States. Sailor riots, filibustering ex-
peditions from California and internal strife and the de-
mands and threats of the British and French had caused
a rising annexation sentiment at Honolulu.
Being informed that the British and French would
forcibly resist a transfer of the islands to the United States,"
Marcy (December 16) instructed Mr. Mason, at Paris, to
sound the French Government upon its policy or views.
Feeling that the Hawaiian Islands could not long remain
under the existing rulers, or under the control of the inhab-
itants, and that their geographical position and their con-
nection with Pacific industries in which American interests
were paramount '^ would inevitably result in their control
by the United States Government, he urged that it would
be fair for England and France to acquiesce in any transfer
made to the United States by fair means.
While the United States had long expressed her policy
of maintaining the independence of the Hawaiian Islands,
she had never entered into any international agreement
which would prevent her from negotiating a treaty of an-
nexation with the Hawaiian Government. She was free to
encourage any movement originating in Hawaii." In
" Instr. Hawaii, Sept. 22. Marcy to Gregg.
" He also had an intimation that Russia had an eye on the
islands, but had little fear of interference from that quarter.
" 650 vessels were at this time engaged in whaling, and mostly
in the Pacific.
" Washburn of Me., on Jan. 4, 1854, made a speech in Congress,
in which he favored expansion to include Hawaii. 29 Con. Globe,
33-1, Appendix, pp. 55-59.
122 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [122
February, 1854, Marcy received a letter from Minister
Gregg stating that the king, fearing his inabiUty to main-
tain the independence of the islands, had made advances
indicating that he might offer to transfer the sovereignty
to the United States. On April 4 he authorized Gregg,
whenever the emergency should arise, to negotiate for a
complete transfer of the islands to the United States as a
territorial possession, and suggested that $100,000 might
be given to the chiefs as compensation for losses which they
would sustain.
Negotiations were opened with the Hawaiian authorities,
who soon showed an " inveterate prejudice against a terri-
torial form of government," and, after approving a form of
treaty, secured delay by urging the necessity of consulting
the king, who was ill." Gregg, fearing a crisis, desired
prompt negotiations and immediate transfer, believing that
after the cession, provisional or permanent, was once made
the flood of emigration from California would soon follow
the raising of the American flag, Americanize the islands,
and check future British and French pretensions.
In September the king seemed satisfied with the proposed
form of treaty, but the British " and French consuls at
Honolulu protested, and the admirals of a combined British
and French squadron warned the king that a cession to the
United States would lead to difficulty. The king proceeded
with the negotiations, but insisted until he obtained clauses
securing additional compensation, and providing that the
islands should be admitted as a State of the Union." On
" Gregg to Marcy, Aug. 7, 1854.
" Gregg said that publications in the New York Tribwie of
July 20, unfortunately aided the British in their attempts to preju-
dice the Hawaiians against the American policy of Marcy and
Gregg. (September 15, 1854.)
" Mrircy felt that the Senate would never approve the clause
providing for statehood in the Union; but, on January 31, 1855, he
instructed Gregg that the United States Government was willing
to receive the transfer of the sovereignty of the islands with all
provisions as to the rights of the inhabitants, and would desire
their prosperity.
123] The Americanization of Hawaii. 123
September i8, General Miller, the British consul-general,
strongly deprecating annexation, urged the king not to
execute the treaty.'" The latter remained friendly to the
United States, but died (December 15) while negotiations
for the final execution of the treaty were still pending.
Kamehameha IV., who became king on January 11, 1855,
became opposed to the completion of the treaty, and was
probably influenced by the English relationship of Emma
Rooke, who, in 1856, became Queen Emma. In 1855 he
participated in the negotiations of a treaty of reciprocity
which the United States afterwards failed to ratify. Until
his death (November, 1863) he remained strongly predis-
posed to favor the British in preference to the Americans.
The latter began to suspect that British diplomacy was pre-
paring Hawaii for a British regency at the death of the king,
with the intention of making it a cotton-growing colony.
Notwithstanding the decline of the whale fisheries after
1854, and the growing influence of the British with the
Hawaiian royal family, American influence in the islands
was kept alive through the channels of industry. In 1857
more than one-half the imports at Honolulu were from the
United States. In 1863, four-fifths of the commerce con-
nected with the islands was American. Interest was in-
creased by the rise of the sugar industry " which, at the close
of the American civil war, became the basis for the agitation
of a treaty of reciprocity with the United States.
On October 9, 1863, Minister McBride, commenting upon
the extensive American commercial and sugar interests in
the islands, wrote Seward that their control by the United
States Government would be " far more valuable than the
ownership of both Cuba and the Bahama Islands." His
successor, Edward M. McCook, on September 3, 1866, in-
formed Secretary Seward that, although many of the Ameri-
can residents were dissatisfied with the king and cabinet,
" Gregg to Marcy, Oct. 2, 1854.
" Settlers had cultivated sugar cane at a very early day, and,
by 1853, they were planting nearly 3000 acres.
124 .-i^icrican Relations in the Pacific and Par East. [124
the influence of the American Government, so far as he
could see, was " all that it had ever been," and that the
spirit of the people was " heartily republican and thoroughly
American." Suggesting that the king would probably die
at an early date without a successor, and that the arbitra-
tion of the destiny the country would devolve upon tlie
United States, he added " And when this dynasty ends . . .
I am sure that if the American Government indicates the
slightest desire to test in their islands the last Napoleonic
conception in the way of territorial extension, you will find
the people here w^ith 'great unanimity demanding by votes,
freely expressed, annexation to the United States."
On May 21, 1867, McCook, by written invitation of the
Hawaiian Government, negotiated a treaty of reciprocity
which was more liberal than that of 1855. The king, prob-
ably by the advice of Varigny, who was his minister of for-
eign affairs, objected to the presence of the United States
ship Lackaivanna in Hawaiian waters, and delayed the rati-
fication of the treaty. After the departure of the vessel,
he convened the legislature and approved the treaty on
July 30. Three days later he sent Captain Waterman as
an envoy to Japan to attempt negotiations for a commercial
treaty — a project which McCook urged would defeat the
objects of the treaty with the United States by diverting into
another channel tlie trade we wished to secure,^ and decreas-
ing our commercial and political influence on the islands.
McCook regarded the treaty of reciprocity as a means of
making American influence dominant on the islands and
in line with a policy of future annexation. President John-
son, stating that there was a growing conviction that our
constitutional system is strong enough to comprehend pos-
sessions beyond the continent," considered the treaty a guar-
^ He desired to secure all of the trade of China and Japan as
well as that of Hawaii. McCook to Van Valkcnburp;, Auk- 3. 1867.
" The cstahlishmcnt of a regular steamer service between San
Francisco and China in 1867 shortened the communication between
the United States and Hawaii. Previous communication had been
by whale ships via Cape Horn.
135] The Americanization of Hawaii. 125
antee of foreign forbearance in Hawaii until the people of
the islands should voluntarily apply for admission into the
Union. There were some who opposed reciprocity on the
ground that it would '' hinder and defeat early annexation,"
but this probably does not explain the motive of the Senate,
which rejected the treaty after delaying action until June i,
1870.
On July 13, 1867, Secretary Seward authorized AlcCook
(at the latter's own suggestion) to sound the Hawaiian
authorities on the subject of annexation; to ascertain the
probable conditions and confidentially to receive overtures.
In the following September he wrote him that lawful and
peaceful annexation of the islands, with the consent of the
people there, was desired, and that in case of any conflict
between the policy of reciprocity and that of annexation
the latter was " in every case to be preferred." In the sum-
mer of 1868 he was informed that the annexation sentiment
in Hawaii was so strong that immediate occupation, under
some pretext of defending American rights, would hardly
raise a single remonstrance; but he saw that the public
mind was so much fastened on domestic questions (recon-
struction) that it would hardly entertain " the higher but
more remote questions of national extension and aggran-
dizement," and prudently avoided giving encouragement to
the Hawaiian-American annexationists.
On September 14, 1869, in the course of a confidential
conversation with the King of Hawaii, McCook stated that
the United States, needing a naval depot between the Pa-
cific coast and China, probably would be willing to pay a
liberal price for the cession of any or all of the islands; but
the king said it was not the policy of the government to
cede either of the four larger islands, and that the United
States would have no use for the smaller ones which had
no harbors.
On February 25, 1871, Mr. Henry A. Pierce, United
States minister at Honolulu, wrote to Fish suggesting that
it was a favorable time to secure the political destiny of
126 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [126
Hawaiian Islands by annexation to the United States. In
support of this policy, he said the majority of aborigines,
Creoles, and the democratic New England settlers, were
anxious for annexation; that the fifteenth amendment to the
United States Constitution had increased the popularity of
the project; that the strategical position of the islands for a
naval or coaling station, and for the protection of United
States commerce in the Pacific was an important considera-
tion; and that His Hawaiian Majesty, whose fatness made
his breathing difBcult, was likely to die from suffocation
without leaving a successor to the throne. President Grant,
who was urging the annexation of San Domingo, confi-
dently referred this despatch to the Senate and invited an
expression of its views, but he did not obtain the encourage-
ment necessary to enable him to express the policy of the
Government upon the subject.
In February, 1873, as a means of removing Hawaiian
lukewarmness and fear of repulse. Pierce urged an expres-
sion of the American policy. Though he thought annexa-
tion probably would never be presented or adopted as a
measure of the Hawaiian Government, he said that the
planters, merchants and foreigners, whenever great interests
required it, would induce the people to establish a republic,
and then ask for admission to the American Union. On
March 25, Secretary Fish, contemplating that the import-
ance of Hawaii and the decadent tendency of the Hawaiian
Government might force the United States to consider its
future, instructed the United States minister to secure full
and accurate information upon the population, industries,
resources and debt of Hawaii, and learn the views of the
Hawaiian authorities concerning the policy, manner, terms,
and conditions of annexation. Regarding the American
policy, he said: "While there are . . . many and influ-
ential persons in this country who question the policy of any
insular acquisitions, perhaps even of any extension of terri-
torial limits, there are also those of influence and of wise
foresight who see a future that must extend the jurisdiction
127] The Americanization of Hawaii. 127
and the limits of this nation, and that will require a resting
spot in mid-ocean, between the Pacific coast and the vast do-
mains of Asia which are now opening to commerce and
Christian civilization." Concerning the reported strong
friendly sentiments in Hawaii, he said: " You will, without
committing the Government to any line of policy, not dis-
courage the feeling in favor of annexation."
Major-General Schofield, of the United States Army,
had already been instructed in June, 1872, to examine the
defensive capabilities and commercial facilities of Hawaiian
ports. In a report to the Secretary of War (May 8, 1873), he
stated that while the government and people of these islands
were probably not then prepared to consider the question of
annexation, even if the United States desired to propose it,
they favored the cession of Pearl river harbor as a means
of securing a reciprocity treaty.
Kalakaua, whom the legislative assembly chose as king
at the death of Lunalilo "^ in February, 1874, showed a dis-
position to favor the American influence in the islands.
During the riots that followed his election, he requested
that an armed forced be landed from American vessels to
preserve order. In 1875 he visited the United States, and
his government negotiated a treaty of reciprocity which
granted certain exclusive privileges to the United States,
and was, for several years, the source of protests by Great
Britain.
The relation of the islands to the United States and the
North Pacific caused the American Government to seek
an American solution for Hawaiian problems. In 1881,
Secretary Blaine, in his instructions to Minister Comly, said
that the gradual and seemingly inevitable decadence of the
native race might induce the United States to change her
policy of commercial assimilation to one of colonization
and material annexation; and he desired Hawaii to coop-
" Lunalilo had succeeded Kamehameha V. whose line ended in
1872.
128 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [138
erate in replenishing her vital forces by the passage of favor-
able homestead laws that would encourage the enterprising
Americans to emigrate to the islands. Secretary Freling-
huysen, though he did not consider it any part of the Ameri-
can policy to interpose to prevent the annexation of the
outlying archipelagoes and islands of Polynesia'" by foreign
powers to whose colonial system they were geographically
allied, said (1883) the United States " could not view with
complacency any movement tending to the extinction of
the national life of the intimately connected commonwealths
■of the Northern Pacific."
Secretary Bayard's policy was to prolong the reciprocity
treaty and quietly wait until American planters and indus-
tries flowing to the islands should prepare for a " perfectly
feasible policy of acquisition." By a convention concluded
in 1884 and ratified in 1887, reciprocity was renewed for
seven years, and the United States was given exclusive
right to enter Pearl harbor, in Oahu, and to establish a
coaling station there. Though the grant of the harbor did
not impair the political sovereignty of Hawaii, it induced
the British to propose that a tripartite arrangement between
the United States, Great Britain and Germany should guar-
antee the neutrality of the islands. Bayard, seeing no neces-
sity for joining in such an arrangement, replied that one of
the articles of the reciprocity treaty inhibited a cession of
any part of Hawaiian territory without consent of the Amer-
ican Government.
The possibility of a crisis under which it would be the
l^jlicy of the United States to take possession by military
occupation had been contemplated for years. In February,
1874, Minister Pierce reconmiendcd that a United States
vessel should be stationed at Hawaii at all times. In May,
" In October, 1883, there was some agitation in Australia in
favor of protection and eventual occupation of the New Hebrides,
the Solomon, and other adjacent groups. The Hawaiian Govern-
ment issued a protest, and attempted to secure the cooperation of
the United States Government.
129] The Americanization of Hawaii. 129
1889, his successor, G. W. Merrill, suggested that in view
of the large American interests, the absence of cable com-
munication, and the approach of a political campaign, the
United States should keep a vessel in Hawaiian waters.
In accordance with this suggestion, the Adams was soon
ordered to Honolulu. The wisdom of such a policy was
proven by subsequent events. On July 30, a band of na-
tives, desiring a larger share of official patronage, and be-
lieving that foreign residents and cabinet officials were en-
deavoring to influence political affairs so as to destroy
Hawaiian autonomy," made an unsuccessful attempt at
revolution. By permission of the native government, about
seventy marines were landed to protect property and influ-
ence the restoration of order. Many American residents
hoped that revolutionary attempts and frequent turmoils
would hasten annexation.
The danger of further disturbance was increased by the
election of February, 1890, which indicated a reaction from
the reform constitution established by the bloodless revo-
lution of 1787. The opposition, aided by the king, who
hoped to recover part of his former autocratic power, gained
votes by appealing to race prejudices and succeeded in
electing many who were not friendly to the United States.
Minister Stevens, expecting factional disturbance, recom-
mended that the United States should order a war vessel to
remain at Honolulu, and soon urged the establishment of a
coal depot.
The dissatisfaction growing out of the change of rulers in
1891 increased annexation sentiment in Hawaii. King
Kalakaua, who died in January, was succeeded by his sister,
Liliuokalani, widow of an American resident, who caused
much discontent by her attitude toward the legislature, and
her subjection to Marshal Wilson, a half-caste Tahitian.
"* The general celebration of the Fourth of July, at Honohilu,
as described by Minister Merrill in a despatch of July, indicates
that there was a strong American sentiment there.
9
130 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [130
On February 8, 1892, Stevens considered that annexation
was the only remedy to reHeve the feverish poHtical situa-
tion and prevent the danger of England obtaining a hold
a month later. Expecting a revolution against the queen's
government, he intimated that the continued presence of a
United States ship-of-\var was necessary, and in view of pos-
sible contingencies, asked for instructions as to duties ol
himself and naval commanders. During the summer, naval
commanders reported that conditions in Hawaii, notwith-
standing the influence of the British element, seemed " to
point toward an eventual request for annexation."
On November 20, in a confidential report of the financial,
agricultural, social and political conditions, and the com-
mercial and naval importance of the islands, Stevens re-
ferred to the strong inclination of Europeans to gain pos-
session of islands in the Pacific, and stated that Hawaii was
at the parting of the ways and must either become Asiatic
or American — either like Singapore or Southern California.
He declared that in order to subserve American commer-
cial and political interests it was absolutely necessary either
to adopt a vigorous policy of annexation or to secure cable
connections with at least an implied American protectorate
over the islands.
On January 15, 1893, Queen Liliuokalani attempted to
promulgate a new constitution, giving herself more power,
depriving foreigners of right of franchise, abrogating the
House of Nobles and giving the queen power to appoint
a new House. Foreigners and others strenuously op-
posed, and a peaceful revolution resulted in the deposition
of the queen. By request of the unopposed dv facto gov-
ernment, marines from the Boston were landed to preserve
order," ^nd Minister Stevens, on February i, assumed pro-
tection of the island. Secretary J. W. Foster commended
his action so far as it accorded protection to life and prop-
erty, but disavowed it so far as it might appear to overstep
" Lucian Young: The Boston at Hawaii, Washington, 1898.
131] The Amcricanisation of Hawaii. 131
that limit by setting the authority and power of the United
States above that of the government of the Hawaiian Islands
in the capacity of a protector, or impair in any way the
sovereignty of the Hawaiian Government.""
The provisional government, which was recognized by
Minister Stevens and all foreign governments except Eng-
land, had already sent commissioners to Washington and
negotiated a treaty of annexation, which President Harri-
son, on February 15, sent to the United States Senate for
confirmation. While the treaty was yet pending in the
Senate, President Cleveland was inaugurated, and ex-Queen
Liliuokalani, having complained that the recent " revolt "
had been aided by United States troops, he soon recalled
the treaty from the Senate and ordered an investigation of
the revolution." On April 14, 1893, awaiting action by
Congress, President Cleveland withdrew the protectorate
established by Stevens on February 9.
Refusing to reinstate the queen, the leaders in Hawaii
on July 4, 1894, dissolved the provisional government and
proclaimed a republic. A movement for annexation
was vigorously pushed, and on June 16, 1897, a treaty of
annexation was sent to the Senate by President McKinley.
The Senate did not act, but after the opening of the war
with Spain, a joint resolution in favor of annexation was
passed by Congress and was signed by President McKinley
on July 7, 1898, soon after the occupation of Manila, where
the American flag now floated over the fortifications of the
Philippines.
Notes on Hawaiian Constitutional History. —
American influence is seen in Hawaiian constitutional devel-
opment.
^' For political correspondence, 1889-93, see H. Exec. Doc. 48,
53-2, Dec. 18, 1893. [Reprint of Sen. Exec. Docs. 76 and 77, 52-2,
Feb., 1893.]
" Commissioner Blount's report is in H. Exec. Doc. 47, 53-2,
Dec. 18, 1893. Also, see Sen. Rp. 227, 53-2, Feb. 26, 1894 [772, pp.
and maps], and Foreign Relations, 1894, Appendix ii.
132 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [132
In 1839, American missionaries and ex-missionaries per-
suaded Kamehameha III. to sign a Bill of Rights, and in
October, 1840, they induced him to grant a constitution,
giving up his absolute power, providing for four depart-
ments of administration, and creating a single legislative
body composed of hereditary nobles and seven representa-
tives formally elected by the people. This constitution,
Mosaic in character, showing derivation from the Penta-
teuch, the British Government and the American Declara-
tion of Independence, lasted for twelve years. By 1851 the
majority of the representatives, executive officials and judges
were natives of the United States.'"
In 1852, the Government agreed upon a revised and much
more liberal constitution, which existed until August, 1864.
It still contained some of the levitical elements, and opened
with " God hath created all men free and equal." It divided
the legislative assembly into two houses, both of which were
enlarged; provided for manhood suffrage and elections by
ballot; denied political rights to any who should import
slaves; and established a Kuhina-nui to regulate the gov-
ernment machine and counsel and restrict the king. The
Kuhina-nui was usually a woman. She and the king each
liad a negative upon the other's acts. She had charge of the
Great Seal, the royal standard and the national flag, and
performed the duties of the king at the latter's death.™
In November, 1863, Kamehameha IV., who had reigned
since 1854, died, and was succeeded by his brother, Prince
Ix)t, who ruled until 1872, as Kamehameha V. The new
king, showing a tendency toward the former royal abso-
lutism, was opposed to part of the constitution of 1852, and
refused to take the oath which it prescribed.*" Seeking the
" In 1850, the king recommended a new constitution and ap-
pointed a committee of three to frame a model. Dr. Judd was the
leading member.
"Eclectic M., Apr. 1865.
** His cabinet consisted of a Scotchman, an Englishman, a
Frcncliman and an American.
133] The Americanisation of Hawaii. 133
quickest way to amend the constitution so as to abolish
universal suffrage and place voting upon an income and
property basis, he called a convention, which was opened in
July, 1864. This convention, of which the king was presi-
dent, consisted of twenty-seven delegates and sixteen nobles
headed by the Kuhina-nui. Mr. Judd, who was made sec-
retary, appointed Anglo-Saxons to fill the positions of chap-
lain, reporter, etc. Many American missionaries, fearing
that the king desired to assume extra powers, had raised the
cry of alarm. When the convention met, the American
party led by Dr. Judd (the ex-minister) and his son (the
secretary) and three or four others, stood for manhood suf-
frage, and opposed the policy of the king, whose views,
delivered in both English and Hawaiian, were seconded by
most of the nobles.
There were some remarkable speeches. Honorable D.
Kalana and others, pointing to the United States for illus-
tration, urged that universal suffrage led to corruption at
the polls, and insisted that it was not the purpose of the king
to take away the poor people's rights. M. Varigny, on the
part of the king, intimated that to give suffrage to the poor
was like placing a razor in the hands of a baby or giving a
candle into the hands of a man to carry into a powder
magazine. The opposition, denying that poverty was any
argument against suffrage, urged that the ballot was an in-
centive to work, and claimed that purity of elections existed
in the United States.
After a week of debates, a decision was reached that all
three estates should sit in debate in the same chamber and
vote unitedly on rules or by-laws, but that constitutional
subjects must first be offered and carried by the representa-
tives (lower house), then receive the separate vote of the
nobles and the sanction of the king. The opposition of the
representatives caused business to move slowly, and the
king, becoming impatient on account of the long discussions
on " Article 62," and the failure to agree, after five weeks of
fretful inculcation, declared it useless to prolong the session,
134 American Relations in the Pacific and Far Ea^t. [134
and claimed the right to abrogate the constitution of 1852.
" I will give you a constitution," said he, and dissolved the
convention.
On August 20 the promised constitution appeared. It
omitted the " free and equal " clause; reversed the bicameral
arrangement and returned to the single legislative chamber;
abolished the Kuhina-nui ; gave the king a larger place in the
state; made the cabinet more responsible; excluded the
ballot; required that representatives should own real estate
worth $500, or have an annual income of $250, and that
electors, besides possessing certain intellectual require-
ments, should own property worth $150, or receive $25
yearly rent and leasehold and $75 income. This constitu-
tion existed until 1887, when the legislative powers of the
crown became entirely vested in the representatives of the
people. The attempt of Liliuokalani in June, 1893, to in-
crease her power and deprive foreigners of the right of suf-
frage by a new constitution resulted in the revolution that
made Hawaii a republic, and prepared the way for annexa-
tion to the United States. The present territorial govern-
ment was established by act of Congress in 1900.^
* See appendix.
CHAPTER IX.
RELATIONS IN SAMOA.
The attitude of the United States toward the Samoan
Islands furnishes an instructive chapter in the evolution oi
national policy. Compared to its policy in Hawaii, the
American Government until recently has shown little in-
terest in securing a control over the islands in the South
Pacific, but local conditions, together with the increase of
American interests in the Pacific and the Far East, led us
first to a policy of protection for Samoa,' and then to divi-
sion and acquisition.
^ The Samoan Islands, located 4200 miles southwest from San
Francisco, and 420 miles northeast of the Fijis, discovered in 1772
by a Hollander, are the largest and most populous Pacific group,
with the exception of the Hawaiian Islands. Of the 13 islands in
the group, only Savaii (700 square miles), Upolo (550 square miles),
and Tutuila (55 square miles) are inhabited. The others are little
more than barren volcanic rocks. The population is about 30,000,
and the area about equal to that of Rhode Island. There are
about 300 Europeans and Americans on the islands. The climate
is tropical, and frequent thunder showers throughout the year
supply the necessary irrigation for the rank vegetation. The pro-
ducts are bread-fruit, taro, yams, bananas, sugar, coffee, sea-island
cotton, cocoanuts, etc. The lagoons and reefs abound in fish,
which the natives catch with spears and nets. Both the import and
export trade is in the hands of Germans. All accounts are kept
in terms of United States currency. The natives are hospitable,
open, amiable, brave and hardy and possess great mental ability,
but are averse to labor. They speak a language similar to that
of the Hawaiians. The principal amusements are quoits, card
playing (casino), cricket and the siva, a kind of acting charade in
which the life of the islands is represented in a very realistic man-
ner by " living pictures." The actual siva is performed by girls,
smeared with cocoa-nut oil, who frequently, under the excitement
of their motions and contortions, divest themselves of all clothing.
The marriage ceremony is very simple, and often there is no cere-
mony except the mere expression of a willingness to live together.
136 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [136
It was seen that the position of the islands, on the great
trade routes between Panama and Cahfornia, on the one
hand, and AustraHa and the Orient, on the other, together
with their strategic advantages, both poHtical and com-
mercial, were more important than the value of their trade.
The harbor of Pango Pango (on the Tutuila), which is
owned by the United States, is the best place in the South
Pacific for repair and supplies and for a coaling and cable
station. The liarbor of Apia, under German control,
though a safe port under ordinary conditions, has proven
unsatisfactory in a severe storm.
Though an American consul had resided at Apia many
years before ^ to protect American interests, our closer rela-
tions began in 1872, when Commander R. W. Meade, a
United States navy officer, of the Narragansett,^ on his own
responsibility, entered into an agreement pledging the pro-
tection of the United States, stating that we were about to
establish commercial relations with the islands by means of
a line of steamers then plying between California, Hawaii,
New Zealand and Australia, and desired a convenient coal-
ing port.
Both parties to a dormant civil war, which had been
pending in Samoa since 1870, interfering with the exports
of the island and causing the natives to spend most of the
time in sharpening their war knives and axes, expressed a
wish to acknowledge the absolute authority of the United
Polygamy has almost ceased. In case of divorce the young chil-
dren go to the mother. Cooking is done by the men, and each
person at the meal uses a bread-fruit leaf for a table, a mat for
a chair, and the nearest post for a table napkin. The early social,
political, and religious life of the Sanioans is an interesting study.
See George Turner's " Samoa a hundred years ago and long be-
fore," [Macmillan, 1884]. and J. B. Stair's " Old Samoa," [London,
1897]. A good review of Turner's volume appears in the Nation
[N. Y.] of August 21, 1884.
'See Senate Rp. Com. 148, 36-1.
• CIco. B. Rieman: Narrative of a cruise of the U. S. Str. Nar-
roRansctt, Oakland, Cal., 1874, 43 pp. Nineteenth Century, Feb.,
1886.
137] Relations ivith Samoa. 137
States, and on March 2 the Chief of Pango Pango " freely
and voluntarily " signed a treaty with Commander Meade,
granting the United States the exclusive privilege of estab-
lishing a naval and coal depot in the bay in return for the
promise of friendly alliance and protection by the United
States.* In May, Grant, stating that he would not hesitate
to recommend its approval, but for the protection to which
it seemed to pledge the United States, sent the treaty to the
Senate," which failed to ratify it.
In 1873 the Department of State determined to obtain
further information regarding the condition of Samoa.
Colonel A. B. Steinberger, sent for this purpose, reached
the islands in 1874. Under him the chiefs assembled a
council, formed a constitution and laws for a united govern-
ment, and again asked Grant to take the country under the
protection of the United States. Steinberger, after making
a voluminous report " on the fertility and resources and im-
portant position of the islands, was impatient to return, and
the Government again sent him with the condition that he
pay his own expenses. He received instructions, dated
December 11, in which Secretary Fish doubted whether the
importance of a commanding position in the Pacific was a
sufficient consideration to satisfy the people that the an-
nexation of the islands was essential to our safety and pros-
perity, and did not consider it expedient " to originate a
measure adverse to the usual tradition of the Government."
* The treaty also provided for the protection of the persons and
property of foreigners and foreign consuls, the regulation of port
charges and pilotage, the prohibition of trade in intoxicating
liquors and work on Sunday, the apprehension of deserters, and
of foreigners from encouraging native females to prostitute them-
selves.
' On March 16, 1872, President Grant, in response to a House
resolution, sent a reply of the Secretary of State of same date,
stating that there were no papers in the Department of State to
show that the inhabitants of the Navigators' Islands, in the Pacific
had made any application to have the protection of the United
States extended over said islands.
' Sen. Exec. Doc. 45, 43-1, Apr. 22, 1874.
138 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [138
Returning to Samoa in 1875, ^^^> Steinberger, dethroned
Tupua, made Alalietoa sole king, changed the constitution,
made himself prime minister of a new government which he
established in the financial interest of a German (Hamburg)
mercantile firm, and gave the impression that the islands
were under the protection of the United States, but the
American Government refused to support him. Embar-
rassed by the renewal of the turbulent spirit among the
chiefs, he fell into trouble as a ruler, and being unable to
produce any credentials from Washington, was deported
with the concurrence of the American consul. A new gov-
ernment, organized under a council of chiefs, continued till
May, 1879, when, by the decision of the consular repre-
sentatives of the United States, Great Britain and Ger-
many, Malietoa was recognized and anointed as king.
Steinberger's action had been upon his own responsibility,
and without the authority of the United States Government.
The purpose of his mission and the character of the power
conferred upon him were the subject of inquiry by the
House. The President responded on May i, communicat-
ing copies of the correspondence, showing that the United
States was not implicated.' An instruction to Steinberger,
written after the report that he had promised the Samoans
the protection of the United States, regretted his action,
stating that the United States Government had not held
out any hope of such protection, and that the State Depart-
ment, without a treaty or sanction of Congress, had no
right to authorize such a promise.
In both 1877 and 1878 consular representatives of the
United States at Apia, " disregarding our traditional policy,"
raised the United States flag as sign of a protectorate, but
the United States Government did not sustain their acts.
In 1877, one of the Samoan parties,' seeking repose from
' H. Exec. Doc. 161, 44-1, May i, 1876. H. Exec. Doc. 44, 44-2,
March 2, 1877. The correspondence may be seen in Sen. Exec.
Doc. 97, 53-3, vol. vi, Feb. 26, 1895.
'At the same time, another party sent its chiefs to Fiji to solicit
British protection.
139] Relations with Samoa. 139
war, and doubtful of their ability to maintain peace and in-
dependence, sent Mamea as ambassador to Washington to
seek American protection; but Secretary Evarts, though
he wished to see a " stable, independent government " that
would command the respect of nations and foreigners and
end the schemes of disorder, was not willing to accept a
protectorate over islands so far distant. In 1878, however,
the United States finally concluded a treaty, receiving
Pango Pango as a coaling station and agreeing to mediate
for the adjustment of difficulties in which Samoa might
become involved with a European power." Soon thereafter,
Germany also made a treaty by which she secured a naval
station in the harbor of Saluafata, and Great Britain negoti-
ated a treaty granting her a naval and coaling station.
In 1879 the foreign powers induced the natives to make
a peace agreement by which one party supplied the king and
the other the vice-king, both of whom were to preside over
a government of lords and commons supposed to be elective.
But the elective system existed only in name. Samoans
did not trouble themselves about their franchise, and soon
the chiefs ignored the whole system and themselves decided
who should be representatives. They appeared incapable
of carrying on a stable government. Their government
had no funds and no system of taxation. They had a par-
liament without a general parliament house. Discussion
was carried on from house to house, each political division
having a house. There was oratory, much squabbling,
scheming and procrastination, but no voting. If the op-
position felt strong enough it would leave and go home to
prepare to fight.'"
The Samoan government was a bone of contention be-
tween the foreign consuls. In 1880" a scheme of tripartite
* On the reception of the treaty and the political situation at
Samoa, see Sen. Exec. Doc. 2, 46-1. Mar. 21, 1879.
'" W. B. Churchward: My Consulate in Samoa [1881-85], Lon-
don, 1887.
" About the same time the United States saw the need of extend-
ing the jurisdiction of her Apia consuls to outlying islands, and
140 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [140
local government by the consular representatives of the
United States. Great Britain and Germany was proposed,
but the United States did not consider the plan desirable.
The Samoans themselves were becoming tired of a shuttle-
cock existence. In 1884. Malietoa and the vice-king begged
Queen Victoria to either make Samoa a British colony or
allow it to be governed by New Zealand.
German residents, acquiring land and monopolizing
trade, had continued to encourage opposition to the king,
and in 1884 the German consul precipitated a crisis by
securing from the Samoan council an agreement providing
for a German-Samoan council of government. The king,
refusing to execute the agreement, Steubel, the German
consul, in 1885, raised his flag over Apia and took pos-
session in the name of his Government as security for
Samoan good behavior toward German interests. The
American consul, Greenbaum, to counteract German influ-
ence, proceeded to hoist the American flag and proclaim a
protectorate. The United States Government disavowed
the action of Greenbaum, but spoke in a determined tone
regarding the protection of American rights in the Pacific."
In the early part of 1886, the State Department was in-
formed that Germany, having agreed with England upon
lines of Pacific division," claimed sovereignty over Samoa,
and the hitherto unclaimed Gilbert and Marshall islands in
which, as in other outlying, unattached groups, the repre-
sentatives of many nationalities had sporadically settled.
was ready to aid native and independent government of the Ralick
groups of Marshall archipelago in establishing temperance re-
strictions.
"Bayard to Pendleton, Jan. 17, 1888.
"In 1885, both Spain and Germany claimed the Caroline Islands,
where large American interests were already established. Ger-
many seemed to suspect the intention of the United States to assert
a claim to the islands, but Secretary Bayard announced our pur-
pose to respect whatever sovereign jurisdiction might be estab-
lished or already exist there, without indicating an opinion on the
Spanish-German controversy.
141] Relations with Samoa. 141
The United States had no treaty relations with either the
Gilbert or Marshall groups, and offered no objection to
their annexation by Germany, but insisted that interests
created in favor of peaceful American settlers there should
not be disturbed by any assertion of exclusive claims of
territorial jurisdiction. In some cases American citizens
had undisturbed possession of the Pacific islands, and the
United States could have asserted a claim of possession, but
she did not desire any exclusive jurisdiction for herself and
was not ready to allow any jurisdiction by others if it should
expel American citizens from rights which they had from
the natives."
Determining to get authentic information regarding the
situation in Samoa, Bayard sent (1886) George H. Bates,
his law partner, to investigate and to prepare an exhaustive
report." Desiring to extend good offices for the establish-
ment of order in Samoa, he suggested a conference of repre-
sentatives of the three powers which, in June, 1887, ^^^^ ^t
Washington to negotiate a treaty securing autonomy and
neutrality of the islands. He urged that the " autonomy
and independence of Samoa should be scrupulously pre-
served," a principle upon which President Cleveland had
insisted in a special message to Congress in the preceding
January. He proposed that each treaty power should alter-
nately keep a man-of-war in Samoan waters four months
"The interest of the United States in regard to the destiny of
the Pacific islands was increased by the rapid absorption of va-
rious groups by the European powers. Great Britain, who had
appropriated Australia a century earher, accepted the Fijis in 1874.
France, who had taken the Marquesas, in 1842, and the New Cale-
donian and Loyahy islands, in 1853, extended her control to the
Society group, in 1880; Spain, who had occupied the Philippines
and Ladrones since the sixteenth century, took possession of the
Carolines, in 1885; Germany assumed control of the Marshall,
Solomon and Admiralty groups; Holland and Germany partitioned
New Guinea. In 1888, Great Britain took Gilbert, Ellice, Union
and Enderbury groups, and several single islands, including Fan-
ning, Washington, Starbuck and Caroline.
" Strictly Confidential Report of G. H. Bates to tlie Secretary of
State, Dec. 10, 1886. Washington, 1887, 135 pp.
142 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [142
of each year to aid in maintaining the government to be
estabhshed and to preserv'e peace and order. He also pro-
posed that administration of laws be, by an executive coun-
cil, composed of the king, vice-king and three foreigners,
one of whom should be designated by each of the foreign
powers, but all of whom should be " paid by the Samoan
Government. The plan which Germany desired, and the
British seemed to favor, committing the practical control of
affairs to a German adviser of the king, he feared would
give Germany too much influence in the Samoan Govern-
ment. Failing to agree upon any plan, the conference ad-
journed in July.
The Germans in Samoa, by mortgages and land sales,
were rapidly getting possession of territory which the na-
tives had never intended to sell," and appeared to be pre-
paring to seize the islands. From the government of
Malietoa, hampered by a House of Lords and a House of
Commons that did as they pleased, and attempting to rule
over a people who refused to obey its orders, they expected
little protection for white settlers. By defeating Malietoa
and setting up another king with a German adviser, they
precipitated a civil contest in which the Samoans were
divided into two hostile camps of armed warriors," one
supported by German arms, and the other by British col-
onels and citizens of the United States; they declared mar-
tial law at Apia and tried to enforce it on Americans, who
at once registered a strong protest."
"... Blaine, on April ii, 1889, in instructions to our negotia-
tors at the Berlin conference, said that the plan proposed by the
United States, in the conference of 1887, was hardly less than a
joint protectorate; it went beyond the principle upon which Presi-
dent Harrison desired to see our Samoan relations based, was not
in harmony with our established policy, and did not promise effi-
cient action.
" In 1886, they claimed 232,000 acres, and the British subjects
357,000 acres.
" See an article by Henry C. Ide in N. Am. Rev., Aug., 1897.
"Commander Leary of the U. S. warship Adams on Sept. 6,
1888, sent a protest to the captain of one of the German vessels.
Marines were landed to protect the American consulate.
143] Relations with Samoa. 143
The United States, though she had not consciously
sought to participate in the contest, and though her trade
with Samoa was small compared with that of Germany and
England, threatened intervention in order to preserve her
interests in the Pacific.'" She promptly sent a naval squad-
ron, which was subsequently destroyed in the hurricane of
1889.^ Congress, after an examination of reports and
much discussion, appropriated $500,000 for protective
measures. On January 17, 1888, in a letter to Pendleton,
replying to Bismarck's complaints as to the anti-German
attitude of Sewall, the American consul at Apia, Secretary
Bayard, reviewing the absorption of Pacific islands by
European powers since 1840, and especially since 1884, was
determined that only the American Government should
preserve Samoan independence and maintain the rights to
which the United States had become entitled in any of the
few remaining islands which were still under independent
and autonomous governments."
In February, 1889, Bayard gladly accepted Bismarck's
proposal for a resumption of the joint conference for a
tripartite agreement. President Harrison appointed John
A. Kasson, William Walter Phelps and George H. Bates as
plenipotentiaries to go to Berhn. A convention,'' concluded
the following June, provided for maintaining the neutrality
of the islands and stipulated that the three powers should
refrain from exercising any separate control over the islands
or the government. It contained clauses prohibiting the
sale of intoxicating liquors, establishing a system of regis-
tering titles, and securing to American citizens equality with
others in trade, etc.
^^ H. Exec. Doc. vol. viii, No. i, 51-1.
^R. L. Stevenson: In South Seas, 1888-89. N. Y., 1896.
" On American rights in Samoa, see H. Exec. Doc. 238, 50-1,
Apr. 2, 1888. 311 pp. For the condition of Samoan affairs, see
Sen. Exec. Docs. 31, 68 and 118, 50-2. Dec. 1888 and Jan. 1889.
Also, a pamphlet of 77 pages, " Confidential correspondence re-
specting affairs in Samoa" [December, 1888-March. 1889], printed
for the use of the American Commissioners to Berlin in 1889.
"•S. Misc. Doc. 81, 51-1, Jan. 6, 1890.
144 American Relatiotis in the Paeific and Far East. [144
The principal features of the government as provided by
the treaty were as follows:
(i) A single king, chosen by the chiefs, a salary of $1800,
instead of the two rival kings, who had received $500 each ;
(2) A supreme court with a chief justice nominated by the
three foreign powers (or by the King of Sweden in case of
disagreement), with a salary of $6000 guaranteed by the
powers. (The clerk and marshal were to be paid by fees.)
The chief justice was given jurisdiction of all Samoan ques-
tions arising under the treaty, between the treaty powers,
and as to the election of king, and could recommend the
passage of laws. He had exclusive jurisdiction in suits be-
tween natives and foreigners, or between foreigners of dif-
ferent nationalities, and of crimes and offences committed
by natives against foreigners.
(3) A local government for the district of Apia (170
electors), consisting of a municipal council of six members
and a president. The president, who was also chief execu-
tive of the district and adviser to the king, was appointed
through the instrumentality of treaty powers, who guaran-
teed him $5000 per year out of the Samoan revenues as-
signed to the municipality. The municipal council ap-
pointed a municipal magistrate and subordinate officers, but
its orders had no effect till approved by the three foreign
consuls or (if they failed to agree) by the chief justice.
(4) A land commission of three persons, one named by
each power, for examination of claims and titles, subject to
final jurisdiction of the chief justice. (Each commissioner
received $300 per month and expenses.)
(5) A fiscal system, providing for revenue duties on im-
ports and exports, capitation taxes on Samoans and colored
plantation laborers, license taxes, etc. All taxes collected at
Apia were to belong to the municipality, and those collected
elsewhere were to belong to the Samoan Government."
" In the condition of affairs in the islands this provision re-
siihed in leaving the government without adequate means of sup-
145] Relations with Samoa. 145
Though the Samoan Government accepted the treaty, and
the chiefs elected MaHetoa king, the rebelHous symptoms
of the opposition party gradually increased. The natives
remaining inveterately opposed to a centralized or civi-
lized government, refused to pay capitation taxes or to
obey warrants of the supreme court, which opened its doors
in June, 1891. Mataafa and his turbulent followers con-
tinued (1891) to gather strength and to live in open defiance
of the king and government, keeping up an armed force,
plundering foreigners and plantations, and harboring refu-
gees from justice."" In July, 1893, war broke out and the
treaty powers actively intervened with naval forces to keep
Malietoa on the throne, and soon deported eleven chiefs to
another island, where they were kept at the joint expense of
the three powers. Meanwliile the chief justice and the
president of the municipal council of Apia resigned. In
November, 1893, H. C. Ide, an American member of the
land commission, was appointed chief justice, but he found
the laws silent and insurrection constantly threatening.
Though the king succeeded in repelling his opponents in
battle, he requested that foreign war-vessels preserve peace
and security (1894).
Though both Bayard and Bates had contemplated the
necessity of assistance from the powers to maintain the
government established by the treaty/' and Gresham, as
late as June, 1893, had informed Pauncefote that the
United States Government would " join in an active dem-
onstration against Mataafa," President Cleveland sent no
port and became a subject of concern and discussion among the
three powers, who were compelled to continue their pecuniary sup-
port of the government.
'' In January, 1893, many in the United States Senate thought we
had made a mistake in refusing to accept annexation or extend a
protectorate when the opportunity was offered.
''On February 20, 1893, Blaine, in a letter to Pauncefote, also
stated that in the execution of the spirit of the treaty of Berlin the
treaty powers should send war vessels to sustain the Samoan
authorities and enforce the warrants of the supreme court by
proper and judicious means.
10
146 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [14(i
war vessels, and considering the islands commercially worth-
less and the inhabitants intractable, in his messages of 1893,
1894 and 1895, recommended withdrawal from the treaty."
Though the treaty of 1889 had been a deliberate act of na-
tional policy in our international relations, both Cleveland
and Secretary Gresham urged that it was a mistake, ex-
pensive, annoying and involving us in entangling alliances."
Gresham referred to the Samoan government as in sub-
stance and form a tripartite foreign government imposed
upon the natives, and supported and administered jointly
by the three treaty powers. On May 9, 1894, a report to
President Cleveland said: "It is in our relations with
Samoa that we have made the first departure from our tra-
ditional and well-established policy of avoiding entangling
alliances with foreign powers in relation to objects remote
from this hemisphere. Like all other human transactions,
the wisdom of that departure must be tested by its fruits.
. . . Every nation, and especially every strong nation, must
sometimes be conscious of an impulse to rush into diflft-
culties that do not concern it, except in a highly imaginary
way. To restrain the indulgence of such a propensity is
not only the part of wisdom, but a duty we owe to the
world as an example of the strength, the moderation and
the beneficence of popular government. . . . The whole
trade of the islands is of small value, and of this only a small
part is with the United States. We have never found it
wise to interfere in the affairs of a foreign country in order
to trade with it." "•
" See an article by H. C. Ides in the N. Am. Rev. for Aug., 1897.
" The Nation said the result of the treaty arranged was con-
tinual unrest, disturbance and foreign interference and opposed the
modern "mania for foreign dependencies at great distances from
our shores, stating that if Samoa belonged to any system it lie-
longed to the Australian system, and that the New Zealanders,
had more reason than the United States to complain of German
meddling. [Nation, May 17, 1894.I
" For Gresham's review of American relations as to Samoa, see
" Foreign Relations," 1894, Appendix i, pp. 504-13. Also, Senate
Exec. Doc. 93, 53-2, vol. iv.
147] Relations with Samoa. 147
The long-range government of refractory, indocile na-
tives, with all its perplexities, under the international joint
protectorate continued to be unsatisfactory and expensive,
but no better plan acceptable to all could be suggested.'"
The death of King Malietoa Lampepa, in August, 1898,
finally produced a crisis which resulted in a new arrange-
ment. The election of a successor developed a contest as
to the validity of the result, and rival claimants took the
field. Chief Justice Chambers (from Alabama) with his
great power, acting by the terms of the general act, ren-
dered his judgment in favor of Malietoa Tanu, and
Mataafa, encouraged by the German consul, and with more
followers than the king had, took up arms. Marines from
American and British warships intervened to restore order."
Steps were taken to improve relations between the United
States and Germany, and to avoid any occasion for further
friction in Samoa,'" a joint commission of representatives of
the United States, Great Britain and Germany were sent to
investigate affairs at Samoa, and to propose a remedy. It
soon abolished the kingship and established a provisional
government. The partition of the islands, as Blaine had
planned in 1889, or annexation of the whole group by a
single power, appeared to ofier best promise of a satisfactory
permanent settlement.
•"Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 531-54; also, 189.5, PP- 1126-59.
" The Nation, Jan. 26, 1899.
'' William Blacklock, the United States vice-consul-general, who
advocated annexation as the only permanent settlement, in a state-
ment of his views for the commission in June, 1899. said:
" The mode of dealing with the natives from the beginning by
the powers interested in Samoa has been calculated to make the
Samoan a most important individual in his own estimation. Stacks
of proclamations have been posted and endless orders from war-
ships been issued, but none has ever been thoroughly enforced,
and the consequence is that now the natives ignore proclama-
tions and laugh at threats of men-of-war. They imagine them-
selves unconquerable, even by the three powers combined, and
every time there is an outbreak they go a little further than the
time before."
148 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [148
Tlie United States was determined not to abandon her
interests to Germany and England. The latter, however,
aj^reed to retire, in view of compensation by Germany in
other directions, and in a treaty providing for a discontinu-
ance by the joint protectorate both powers renounced (No-
vember, 1894), in favor of the United States, all their rights
and claims to that portion of the group east of 171 west
longitude, including Tutuila and other smaller islands. By
the same convention the United States agreed to renounce
all claims to the islands of the group lying west of 171, thus
giving the Germans the preponderating force which they
had exercised in that region before the treaty of Berlin was
made. She received a guarantee, however, for the same
privileges and conditions as those possessed by Germany in
respect to conmierce and commercial vessels in all the
islands of Samoa. Malietoa, after an unsuccessful protest,
expressed his views in a letter to the London Times, in
which he took occasion to assert that the civilization intro-
duced by the great powers in their annexations in the islands
of the South Seas is inferior to the primitive state of those
islands."
The American flag now floats over the naval station at
Pango Pango, and the island of Tutuila is under the con-
trol of the navy, but there has been no interference with the
political self-government of the natives, who have appeared
delighted to pass under the sovereignty and protection of the
United States.
" London Times, January 12, 1900.
CHAPTER X.
OCCUPATION OF THE PHILIPPINES.
The Philippines, which have recently and unexpectedly
enlarged the sphere of the United States in the Far East,
were visited by Americans at a very early date in our na-
tional history. After the close of the war of 1812, Secre-
tary Monroe took steps to obtain information regarding
conditions there and to secure a report on the prospects
for trade. In March, 1817, Andrew Stuart, who had re-
sided in Manila since 181 2, received from President Madi-
son a commission as United States consul at that place.
For several years he was not officially recognized by the
Spanish authorities, but he was allowed to remain and was
not obstructed in the performance of the duties of a consul.'
In September, 1818, he reported that the Spanish authorities
had found several Americans among the crew of the Argen-
tina, a Buenos Ayres privateer, which had been obstructing
the provincial commerce for several months. Writing to
Secretary Adams, in June, 1819, he stated that unless inter-
rupted by the " proverbially suspicious government," he
proposed to place the United States in possession of Royal
nautical directions for the guidance of galleons and for the
harbors to which they resorted, together with charts and
drawings showing " tracks laid down in unpublished Span-
ish plans," which he suggested might " assume an aspect of
great national and political importance and utility . . .
should the amicable relations between the two governments
ever be interrupted or ruptured."
About the same time, Lieutenant John White, of the
* Consular Letters, Manila, vol. i, 1817-40. [MS.]
150 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [150
United States navy, after arriving at Cavite and Manila,
and taking breakfast with Stuart, wrote: "The spirit of
independence which has recently diffused its influence
through Spanish colonies on the American continent has
also darted its rays across the Pacific . . . and the time is
perhaps not very remote when it shall burst forth and shed
its joyous light upon the remotest and most inconsiderable
islet of this archipelago." ..." Perhaps no part of the
world offers a more eligible site for an independent republic
than these islands." '
In November, 1820, Consul Stuart, writing of recent na-
tive maraudings, murders and riots, and feeling that the
Government was too slow in declaring martial law, sug-
gesting that the recently published new constitution was
too liberal to the natives and expecting a general revolution
to result, said the Filipinos were treacherous, ungrateful and
" insensible of any favor done them," and " ought to be
governed rather strict(ly) to keep them obedient to the
laws, make them industrious, to work in every mode against
their natural and old inclinations." ' At that time there was
little demand for American goods, but by 1834, Consul H.
W. Edwards, noticing the increase of imports of American
manufacturing goods, said: "These islands will eventually
be the outlet of our manufactures to a great extent."
The United States, though she annexed the Philippines
as a result of long-evolving circumstances,* acquired them
as the result of no long-contemplated plans. In 1898, at
the beginning of the war of intervention in Cuba, she had
"no design of aggrandizement and no ambition of conquest."
Needing a naval station and a port where our war vessels
could find protection and desiring to reduce the strength
of the enemy, after the declaration of war, the American
Government ordered Dewey to destroy the Spanish fleet at
'John White: A Voyage to the China Sea. Boston, 1823.
' Consular Letters, Manila, vol. i, 1817-40.
' R. H. Bancroft: The New Pacific.
151] Occupation of the Philippines. 151
Manila. By a brave dash into the harbor, we soon held
the key to the Phihppines and cut off communication with
Madrid. To hasten peace we sent an army of occupation
across the Pacific. At the close of the war, though we had
taken up arms " without any original thought of complete
or even partial acquisition," the presence and success of our
arms in Manila brought our republican empire new oppor-
tunities which she could not wisely reject, and new duties
and responsibilities which she could not courageously and
honorably avoid. Having obtained occupation of a rich
prize, whose value was well known by European powers
that would have seized it at first opportunity without hesi-
tation, and seeing the value of a permanent establishment
at the gates of the East, the McKinley administration in the
peace negotiations of 1898, accepting the logic of our his-
tory, resolved to relieve Spain of insular dependencies she
had only held with a weak hand and which, under American
control, would have the opportunity to enjoy greater free-
dom, and would give the American nation a greater place
in the affairs of the world.
On October 28, 1898, the American Peace Commissioners
at Paris were instructed as follows: ''Territorial expan-
sion should be our least concern; that we shall not shirk
the moral obligations of our victory is of the greatest.
It is indisputed that Spain's authority is permanently de-
stroyed in every part of the Philippines. To leave any part
in her feeble control now would increase our difficulties and
be opposed to the interests of humanity. Nor can we per-
mit Spain to transfer any of the islands to another power.
Nor can we invite another power or powers to join the
United States in sovereignty over them. We must either
hold them or turn them back to Spain.
" Consequently, grave as are the responsibilities and un-
foreseen as are the difficulties which are before us, the Presi-
dent can see but one plain path of duty — the acceptance of
the archipelago. Greater difficulties and more serious com-
plications, administrative and international, would follow
152 American Relations in the Pacific and Par East. [152
any other course. The President has given to the view of
the commissioners the fullest consideration, and in reaching
the conclusion above announced in the light of information
communicated to the conmiission and to the President since
your departure, he has been influenced by the single con-
sideration of duty and humanity. The President is not un-
mindful of the distressed financial condition of Spain, and
whatever consideration tiie United States may show must
come from its sense of generosity and benevolence, rather
than from any real or technical obligation."
On November 13, the following additional instructions
were sent:
" From the standpoint of indemnity both the archipela-
goes (Porto Rico and the Philippines) are insufficient to
pay our war expenses, but aside from this, do we not owe
an obligation to the people of the Philippines which will
not permit us to return them to the sovereignty of Spain?
Could we justify ourselves in such a course or could we
permit their barter to some other power? Willing or not,
we have the responsibility of duty which we cannot escape.
The President cannot believe any division of the archipelago
can bring us anything but embarrassment in the future.
The trade and commercial side, as well as the indemnity for
the cost of the war, are questions we might yield. They
might be waived or compromised, but the questions of duty
and humanity appeal to the President so strongly that he
can find no appropriate answer but the one he has here
marked out."
The treaty of peace '' of December 10 provided that Spain,
beside witlidrawing from the West Indies, should cede to
the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine
Islands; that the United States should pay to Spain the sum
(if $20,000,000, and that the civil rights and political status
of the native inhabitants should be determined by Congress.
The treaty was ratified by the Senate on February 6, 1899,
• Sen, Doc, 62, part i, 55-3, Jan. 4, 1899, 677 pp.
153] Occupation of the Philippines. 153
and by the Government of Spain on the 19th of March fol-
lowing. The ratifications were exchanged on the nth of
April and the treaty publicly proclaimed. On the 2d of
March Congress voted the sum contemplated by the treaty,
and the amount was paid over to the Spanish Government
on the I St of May. The United States, though acting on
the principle that " there must be no joint occupation with
the insurgents," who were in arms against the Spanish Gov-
ernment in the Philippines, had from the time of American
occupation assured the people that the United States Gov-
ernment desired to advance their interests and welfare. On
the 21 St of December, after the treaty was signed, the com-
mander of the forces of occupation was instructed " to an-
nounce and proclaim in the most public manner that we
come not as invaders and conquerors, but as friends to
protect the natives in their homes, in their employments
and in their personal and religious rights.
With a desire to establish peace and order, and as much
self-government as was " compatible with the welfare of the
people," in January, 1899, President McKinley sent to
Manila, Commissioners Schurman, Denby and Worcester,
who, in association with Admiral Dewey and Major-General
Otis, were instructed " to facilitate the most humane and
effective extension of authority throughout the islands and
to secure with the least possible delay the benefits of a wise
and generous protection of life and property to the inhab-
itants." Before they reached Manila, Aguinaldo, claiming
that a United States officer had promised that the islands
should be independent, directed the Filipinos in an attack
on the American lines and precipitated a condition full of
embarrassment to the United States and grievous in its
consequences to the islanders.'
Aside from an ignominious retreat, which would have
exhibited a " nerveless pusillanimity," and abandoned the
islands to strife and anarchy, making them an apple of dis-
• Sen. Doc. 208, 56-1, Mar. 5, 1900, 173 pp. -{-
154 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [154
cord among rival powers, the only course remaining for the
United States was to subdue the unprovoked and wasteful
insurrection, preparatory to the establishment of order and
the reconstruction of the government. The commissioners,
in their report, said: " Our obligations to other nations and
to the friendly Filipinos, and to ourselves and our flag, de-
manded that force should be met by force." For the
restoration and mamtenance of order in the Philippines,
including the Sulu peninsula, the recent haunt of piracy,
we were responsible to the world. To renounce the au-
thority which we had accepted tacitly and by treaty, and
give the islands an independence for which they were not
prepared, would have been unjust to the loyal majority who
sought American protection. To have declared the islands
independent under an American protectorate, would have
made us responsible for the acts of the insurgent leaders
without the power to control them, and would have involved
us in endless tasks of adjusting quarrels between factions
in the islands and between the islands and foreign powers.^
Judge W. H. Taft, professedly an anti-expansionist, in
a speech at Cincinnati on March 5, 1900, said:
" My conviction is that the calm investigation of the
future historian into all the conditions existing at the time
of taking each step toward the present situation in the Phil-
ippines will lead him to conclude that President McKinley
and his Administration selected in each crisis the only alter-
native which a due regard to our national and international
obligations would permit."
American control of the Philippines will mean the new
dawn of freedom, progress and civilization to the islanders.
During the declining insurrection the islands have neces-
sarily been under military authority. President McKinley's
policy has been " to inaugurate governments essentially
popular in their form as fast as territory is held and con-
trolled by our troops," beginning the work of reconstruction
' Sen. Doc. 138, 56-1, vol. i (Jan. 31, 1900), 264 pp.
155] International Situation in the Far East. 155
by first forming municipal and provincial governments and
leaving the establishment of a central government at
Manila for the last step. He has sent a commission as a
substitute for military government, and as a preliminary
step to the establishment of a territorial form of govern-
ment v^hen it may be possible to give the natives the right
of suffrage.
The changing conditions in Asia, the mother of races, are
observed with interest by the entire world. From the East
to the Far Elast, fact is overcoming fancy, and new Hfe
takes the place of the fading, vanishing pictures of the past.
Modern, relentless progressiveness is gaining a foothold
in the land of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the land of
Moab, in the Garden of Eden, and in the homes of Con-
fucius and Buddha. The walls of Jerusalem echo the pant
and screech of the locomotive, which now connects the Holy
City with Jaffa on the Mediterranean; and probably it will
not be long before a trolley line will connect the site of
Solomon's capital with a line of steamboats on the Dead
sea, which has so long remained a forsaken solitude in the
midst of a desert. At the other end of Asia, Japan, since
opening her arms to the progressive West, is thriving with
manufacturing and other developing industries, and has
recently stood forth as the little giant of the Orient. In
1894, disputing with China the protectorate of Corea, she
sent her well-drilled and well-equipped troops to sustain
her claims, soon occupied all Corea, Port Arthur, part oi
Manchuria and Wei-hai-Wei, and by the treaty of Shimon-
osaki (in April, 1895), induced China to cede Formosa, the
Pescadores, and the peninsula of Liao-tung, to open new
ports, to permit the erection of Japanese manufacturing
establishments in the empire, and to agree to pay a war
indemnity of seven hundred and fifty millions. She sur-
prised the world by the rapidity of her success, but she was
156 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [156
soon persuaded, by the concerted " friendly " protest of Rus-
sia, France and Germany, to modify the treaty and relin-
quish Liao-tung and Wei-hai-Wei.
China, awakening from the lethargy of ages, observes that
the face of the ^vorld has ciianged, and is preparing for
regeneration from a long rule of ultra conservatism/ She
will soon be threaded with railways, and brought into
closer touch with Western civilization. She has granted
to Great Britain the privilege of building railroads in the
valley of the Yang-tsc, and has made concessions to other
nations for roads in other parts of the empire. In 1896,
she granted to the Eastern Chinese Railroad Company the
right to build a line through Chinese Manchuria (to connect
as a branch of the Trans-Siberian Railway), to develop coal
and other mines in the adjoining territory, and to engage in
other industrial and commercial enterprises. In 1898, she
granted to Russia the privilege of building a railway from
Vladivostock to Port Arthur. More recently she agreed to
permit the construction of a line from Mukden in Man-
churia to Peking, and three lines from Peking to the prov-
inces of Shansi. Ho-nan and Hupeh. Still other lines are
in contemplation to connect southern China with Peking,
with French Indo-China, and with I>urma of Britisli India.
The " Eastern Question " has spread from Constantinople
and the eastern shores of the Mediterranean to Persia,
Afghanistan, and the Far East. It has expanded or resolved
itself into many problems, of which the Chinese has recently
become the most prominent. Of the nominally independent
countries of Asia, 1. c., Turkey, Arabia, Oman. Persia,
Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Siam, China, Corea and Japan
— only Japan is thoroughly independent in fact. European
powers have zones of influence in all of the others. Turkey,
in need of a better government, has been the object of the
'A. R. Calqulioun: China in Transformation. Curzon: Prob-
lems of the Far East. Lord Charles Bcresford: TIic Break-up of
China.
157] International Situation in the Far East. 157
deliberations of an international congress. Central Arabia
is inhabited by tribes who owe allegiance to no single ruler.
Oman is practically an English protectorate. Persia is
dominated by Russia in the north and by England in the
south. Afghanistan, under the uncertain rule of an Afghan
chief, receives a subsidy from British India, and permits a
Russian flotilla on her branches of the Oxus. Some say
that occupation or protection by some stronger power is
apparently the only relief for the chaotic conditions which
exist from the Bosporus to the Hindu Kush. China,
though not in the same political condition as Turkey and
Persia, sometimes appears to be preparing herself for a
coroner's inquest or vivisection. Her internal condition,
together with her relation to opposing powers with con-
flicting interests, presents a serious case to the political doc-
tors, who find it difficult to agree upon a remedy to effect
a permanent cure.
The Anglo-Saxon and the Slav have met on the Plains
of Pamir, the roof of the world, at the western gate of China.
Only a strip of Afghan territory, twelve miles wide, lies be-
tween them, and it is under British influence. Afghanistan
is only a temporary " buffer " between them, though it may
be of little value to either except as a basis for military
operations. With half-completed military roads, they keep
their armies like bridled steeds, ready to prance toward each
other in war-harness. The Anglo-Saxon nation, incessantly
toiling, cultivating swamps and clearing jungles, driving
back famine and pestilence, and opening the tropics to the
world, has extended her dominion upward from the south
of India, secured a supreme influence in Southern Asia from
the Red Sea coast and the Persian Gulf on the west to
Siam and toward Singapore on the east. She has peacefully
expanded over Beluchistan, and extended her control north-
ward from Calcutta to the Himalayas and eastward to Siam.
Still further east she possesses Borneo and South Sea groups
of islands. In China, she is already established at Hong
Kong, has a shadowy sphere of predominating influence in
158 American Relations in the Facitic and Far East. [158
the Yang-tse valley, and is planning to secure a concession
for a railway from Burma to Yunnan.
The Slav, by a long record of toil and privation and self-
directed effort, has colonized central Asia and continued
eastward with half-accidental, half-unconscious progress
across the continent. Vast Russia, virile, apparently in-
vincible, and increasingly predominant, spanning Europe
and Asia, embracing one-half the combined area of the two
continents (and nearly two and one-half times as large as the
United States), is steadily expanding to the south and east
along a wavering frontier of 10,000 miles. She is strength-
ening her hand in the Bosporus, Syria and Palestine and
in Persia, which offers a practicable trade outlet to the
Indian ocean, and an advantage in case of conflict with
England. If England and France would permit, she would
absorb Turkey, whose capital she has threatened for 800
years. She has become predominant in the north of Per-
sia, whose territory she has been acquiring for 100 years.
She has consolidated her position in Turkestan, elbowed
China out of Pamir on the west. The more England has
hindered her in the south, the better has she established
herself in the cast, especially since the Crimean war. In
her search for a " scientific boundary," she has always ad-
vocated " rectification of the frontier " as a remedy for
grievances, and is now in possession of the greater part of
the land which China has been losing since 1858. Indent-
ing Chinese territory from Pamir to Manchuria, she has
been making rapid strides to occupy the position once held
by Genghiz Khan/
Russia is now at the beginning of a new era in her his-
tory. Since 1893, she has been consolidating the work of
the early venturesome explorers across the wilds of Siberia
by the construction of a trans-Siberian railway witli numer-
ous stations and liranches. P>y means of this road she is
securing a more rapid colonization of Siberia — whose fertile,
'Alexia Krausse: Russia in Asia (1558-1899).
159] International Situation in the Far East. 159
productive lands no longer remain locked in silence and
solitude — and is expecting to work a revolution in the com-
merce and travel of the world. She is bringing the Far
East to the doors of Europe, and preparing to become an
oceanic power. After a struggle of 200 years to reach
the open sea, and a port free from ice at all seasons of the
year, she now floats her flag over Port Arthur, southeast of
Peking, and is attaining the freedom of the seas.
Russia now threatens to secure an advantage in the trade
of China by a process of gradual absorption. She has rap-
idly become a manufacturing nation, and, like Great Britain
and the United States and other powers, is seeking new
markets. She claims a sphere of influence north and east
of Peking, and has an eye toward the great central valley
where British influence is still predominant. Knowing that
it will be difficult for her, under equal terms, to compete
with British, American, German and French trade, she may
undertake to secure exclusive privileges for her traders and
for the exercise of her influence, and perhaps obtain com-
plete control of portions of China under an exclusive colonial
system. In case she should become involved in a conflict
'with Great Britain, who has so long been her competitor
and antagonist in the direction of Asia, she would probably
have the assistance of France, who, driven from India by the
British, and profiting by fortunate circumstances, has estab-
lished a new French empire in the Indo-Chinese peninsula
(including Cambodia, Anam, Cochin China and Tonkin),
and has a sphere of commercial activity in the south of
China. Russia and France, should they form an alliance
for the partition of China, would probably be resisted by
the common action of Great Britain and Japan, and also by
Germany in case such action should seem to be subor-
dinate to her European and general interests.
The United States, though beginning to play a great part
in the Pacific, and having trade interests in the Orient which
may increase rapidly, desires to remain free to act inde-
pendently, or in cooperation, as circumstances may indicate
160 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [160
to be the wisest policy. She feels, however, that her posi-
tion among the nations,with a large Pacific coast and a con-
stantly expanding direct trade with the Far East, gives her
" an equitable claim to consideration and friendly treat-
ment." She finds an open door along the shores of south-
ern Asia, where Great Britain has control, and perhaps
would participate in active cooperation to prevent any power
from securing exclusive commercial advantages in China.
She " has not been an indifferent spectator of the extra-
ordinary events transpiring in China," by which portions
of the maritime provinces are passing under the control of
various European powers; but the necessity of her becom-
ing an " actor in the scene " has been obviated by the pros-
pect that the new occupants will not prejudice American
commerce by exclusive treatment.'
The United States, through her prestige as a territorially
disinterested power, and her ability to speak in the lan-
guage of unselfish, powerful diplomacy, has an opportunity
to become an arbiter in a peaceful and definite settlement
of the problems of the Far East, securing fair dealing and
equal opportunity, and preserving the honor and interests
of all. Facing Asia as well as Europe, she is well situated
for the protection of American interests and the support
of the independence and integrity of China with an open
door to commerce — a policy which the American Govern-
ment has advocated for over thirty years.* With her west-
ern coast ports, the Hawaiian and Philippine islands, and
steamers on the Pacific, if she prepare to urge an open-door,
non-partition policy in China, she can secure her share of
the developing trade of the Orient.
The importance of securing ports or establishments in
the vicinity of the coasts of Asia, for the benefit of American
commerce, was suggested in the early part of the century.
It was urged in 1832 by President Jackson, who sent Ed-
■ President McKinley's message. Dec. 5, 1898.
* Instr. Germany, Fish to Bancroft, Aiir. 31, 1869.
161] International Situation in the Far East. IGl
mund Roberts to negotiate treaties with Borneo, Siam,
Cochin China and Japan. The increase of American in-
terest in the Orient, by the conditions following American
expansion to California, soon resulted in a determination
to secure better facilities for intercourse with the Pacific
and the Eastern countries. " The future history of the
world must be achieved in the East," said W. H. Trescot,
who urged (1849) the policy of an Anglo-American alliance
as a means to prevent Russian designs in China and to
■■ control the history of the world." Senator Seward, ad-
vocating surveys in the seas of the Far East, in 1852, said:
'* Who does not see, then, that every year hereafter, Euro-
pean commerce, European politics, European thought, and
European activity, although actually gaining force, and Eu-
ropean connections, although actually becoming more inti-
mate, will, nevertheless, relatively sink in importance; while
the Pacific ocean, its shores, its islands and the vast region
beyond will become the chief theatre of events in the world's
great Hereafter. . . . "Who does not see that this move-
ment must . . . develop the American opinion and influ-
ence, which shall remould constitutional laws and customs
in the land which is first greeted by the rising sun ... I
cannot reject the hope that peace is now to have her swav.
. . . Commerce is the great agent of this movement. What-
ever nation shall put that commerce into full employment,
and shall conduct it steadily with adequate expansion, shall
become necessarily the greatest of existing States." Com-
modore Perry, on his route to secure ports in Japan, pro-
posed the occupation of the Loo Choo Islands as a pre-
liminary measure, and also contemplated the extension of
American jurisdiction over the Bonin group. Later he
suggested the occupation and colonization of Formosa.
In 1856 and 1857, Mr. Parker, the American commissioner
in China, suggested to Secretary Marcy the policy of tak-
ing Formosa from China as an indemnity [supra, p. 98].
Marcy had just been making an effort to acquire Hawaii,
as an outlying territorial possession with no promise of
II
162 American Relations in the Pacific and Far East. [162
statehood, but ho was opposed to the seizure of Formosa.
The peaceful negotiation of treaties with Japan and China,
after 1857, reduced the immediate importance of securing
ports on the smaller islands as proposed by Perry. The
annexation of Hawaii, however, continued to be regarded
as a measure concomitant with the increase of American
influence in the Pacific. In reply to those who opposed
its annexation because of its distant insular position, Sen-
ator Dolph, in 1893, said: "We must abandon the doc-
trine that our national boundaries and jurisdiction should
be confined to the shores of the continent. We cannot
aflford. like a snail, to draw our heads within our shells."
At the beginning of 1898, Senator I^dge said that since we
had made the citadel secure, we must not now neglect the
outposts.
By the retention of the Philippines, the United States has
entered upon a new era. Refusing to choose a policy of
isolation, she has become a world power, and a leading
factor in international politics. She no longer stands aloof
from the Pacific, " the historic sea of the future." " as she
did in her weak beginnings when the vast unexplored ter-
ritories on our west belonged to foreign powers.
Her evolution to the " Great Pacific Power " appears to
be but the logic of history. Richard Olney, ex-Secretary of
State, recently referring to our future relations with the
European powers struggling for commercial and political
supremacy in the East, said the abandonment of our " inter-
national isolation " policy, which was only suited to the
period of onr infancy, was inevital)lo. and would result in
* " The nations have their toes toward the Pacific." They have
left very, few of its islands unappropriated. Since the race for
island-grabbing in the South Seas, in 1884-86, there is no longer
an opportunity to occupy fabled regions unexplored in the Poly-
nesian world. The nations have been taking time by the forelock
and preparing to secure positions which arc likely to prove advan-
tageous in connection with the swiftly changing conditions in the
Orient.
163] International Sitiiativn in the Far East. 163
aiding our commercial interests and the widening of our
mental and moral vision as a nation.
The constitutional question involved in the acquisition
and government of the Philippines has recently been the
subject of much discussion. It will soon be a subject
of decision by the Supreme Court. The American Gov-
ernment is acting upon the belief that the islands can be
governed by Congress as territorial possessions of the
United States, and in beginning the inauguration of a
responsible government has very liberal views.' It pro-
poses a political system devised for the interest of all con-
cerned and administered by the inhabitants as far as they
show a capacity for self-government; but, if necessary to
preserve order, the islands may be ruled by the American
Government with a hand as strong as that of JefTerson,
who applied his " despotic " non-representative system to
Louisiana against the protests of the inhabitants, who re-
quested him to send the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution to the shores of the Mississippi.
America faces responsibility and opportunity with the
same spirit of confidence which animated the Fathers. With
her face set toward the morning, she seeks duty with the
courage of the optimist and the ameliorator. She does not
let her aspirations sink before the predictions of the prophets
"In his message of Dec, 1899, President McKinley said:
" The hour of victory will be the hour of clemency and recon-
struction.
" No effort will be spared to build up the waste places desolated
by the war and by long years of misgovernment. We shall not
wait for the end of the strife to begin the beneficent work. We
shall continue, as we have begun, to open the schools and the
churches, to set the courts in operation, to foster industry and
trade and agriculture, and in every way in our power to make these
people, whom Providence has brought within our jurisdiction, feel
that it is their liberty and not our power, their welfare and not our
gain, we are seeking to enhance.
" Our flag has never waved over any community but in blessing.
I feel the Filipinos will soon recognize the fact that it has not lost
its gift of benediction in its world-wide journey to their shores."
164 .iiiicriciui Rclatio)is in (he Pacific and Far East. [164
of disaster. She has not become discouraged by the gloomy
views of '■ trembhng ones shrieking at the self-conjured
ghost of imperialism, as if empire could grow on freedom's
soil." She sees no reason to condenm the present or to
ilespair of the future. She observes that the republic has
survived the predictions of disaster made by those who
opposed the policy of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and their
successors. She asserts that the Ship of State under sunny
skies still has her anchors, and is abundantly able to meet
new conditions in world movements.
The future belongs to the future. Its conditions will in-
fluence the shaping of policy for the solution of problems
as they arise. CQut America has no element of exploitation
or imperialism lurking in her purposes. With high and
just motives, she reaches the hand of helpfulness across the
seas which she wishes to transform into paths for ships.
She will continue to embark, venture, explore and investi-
gate, as she has in the past. She will carefully survey and
feel her way, and construct charts for those who follow.
With the strenuous spirit of tlie pioneer, she advances be-
yond the frontier. When she reaches streams unspanned,
she will build bridges; and when she comes to bridges, she
will cross them.
The descendants and beneficiaries of those who, three
centuries ago, animated with the desire to found an imperial
democracy, faced the cold, inhospitable coasts of a wild,
uncivilized continent and began our traditional policy of
expansion, may confidently face the problems of foreign
policy and territorial govcrnnicnt which now confront them.
APPENDIX A.
Instructions to Humphrey Marshall as Commls-
sioNER TO China in 1852-53/
Department of State,
Washington, 11th August, 1852.
No. 1. Humphrey Marshall, Esq.,
etc., etc.
Sir : — The Departmeat [has] already commnnicated to you your Com-
mission as Commissioner of the United States of America to China.
Tour compensation as fixed by law is at the rate of Six Thousand
Dollars (S6000) per annum. . . .
To become properly conversant with the business of the Legation, yon
will have recourse to the correspondence between this Department and
your predecessors in the Mission, recorded in its archives. Special
instructions on important subjects between the two Governments will
be sent to you from time to time as occasion may require.
During your residence in China, you may sometimes be applied to to
interpose in behalf of American citizens for the purpose of obtaining
satisfaction of claims which they may have upon the Chinese Govern-
ment, or the redress of grievances which they may experience in the
course of their dealings and transactions. In cases of this nature, where
the intervention of this Government shall be proper according to the
public law, you will afford such official aid as may appear to you appro-
priate to the occasion whether you have special instructions from this
Department or not. . .
I am Sir, respectfully.
Your obedient servant,
Das'- Webster.
[1 China Instr., pp. 76-79.] . . .
1 Before the appointment of Marshall, the position had been offered to three
persons within one year. The nomination of A. R. Nelson was confirmed by
the Senate in March, 1851. Joseph Blunt accepted the place on October 20,
1851. On February 24, 1852, the President offered the place to Alfred Conkling-,
of New York, who declined. Marshall's commission was sent to him by the
Department of State on August 0, 1852. See p. 90, siipni.
1G() Appendix A. [166
Detaktment of State,
Washington, 20tii Sept., 1852.
No. 2. Hmmpurey Mailsiiall, Esq.,
BTC, ETC.
Sir: — You are aware that some of our citizeus now or formerly resi-
dent in China, have, for a long time past had claims against the Chiiifse
Government. The cases are that of the Rev. Mr. Roberts for losses sus-
tained by a mob at Canton, and that of Messrs. Louis Manigault and
Edward Cunningham, for assault and robbery in the neighborhood of
the same city. The Department is not in possession of such proof as
would warrant it in expressing an opinion in regard to these claims.
As you will be ou the spot, however, where all the evidence that can be
adduced in support of them will be accessible to you, you will be
enabled to determine whether they are of such a character as would
warrant the official interposition of this Government. It i.s possible
that the Chinese Government might require proof of your authority to
negotiate upon the subject. To provide for this contingency, it lias
been judged expedient to give you the accompanyiug full power. This
will enable you to adjust not only the cause above mentioned, but any
others which may occur during your mission.
I am Sir, respectfully.
Your obedient servant,
C. M. CONKAD,
Acting Secretary.
1 1 China Instr., pp. 70-80.]
Depaktment of State,
Washington, Tth June, 185:j.
No. H. HuvPHUEY Mahsuall, Esq.,
ETC., ETC.
.Si>-.- — Your despatches to No. 10, inclusive, have been duly received at
this Department.
The (iovernment of the United States has recently received additional
information of the successful progress of the Revolutionary movements
in China. It is also apprised of the intention of the Government of
Great Britain to avail itself of the present condition of things in that
country "to obtain "increased facilities of intercourse" with it, not
exclusively for its own subjects but for all nations and it lias suggested
to this Government to send such instructions to our Commissioner there
as will "emjiower him to take such course in conjunction witii Her
Majesty's I'lenipotentiary as will be calculated to turn to the best
account the opportunity ofTered by the present crisis to oi)en the Chinese
Empire generally to the commercial enterprise of all of the civilized
nations of the world."
167] Appendix A. 167
The end proposed commends itself to the approval of the President
and he directs you to do what you can within your proper sphere of
action, towards its accomplishment. Our treaty stipulations with China
must be respected and our settled policy of non-interference in the eon-
tests which arise between the people and their rulers must be observed.
Without a departure from these rules of conduct you may be able to do
much in such a crisis as does or may exist in China to cause an abandon-
ment of the unwise restrictions imposed by China upon foreign inter-
course. Without knowing what course the British authorities may
deem it expedient to take in furtherance of the object in view, the
President does not enjoin upon you cooperation, but only cordial rela-
tions and free conference with them.
As it is impossible to anticipate here what will be the condition of
things there, no specific instructions in regard to your official conduct
can be given. Your own judgment must be your guide as to the best
means to accomplish the desired object.
In the agitated state of the country the property of our citizens
therein and their rights will probably be in unusual danger. You will
be vigilant and active in affording them all the protection within your
power. The naval force of the United States in that vicinity will be
devoted to this important object.
The Department requests you to keep it fully advised of the progress
of events in China, of the effects of the Revolutionary proceedings there
upon our interests and of the prospects presented for a more free and
extended commerce with that country.
I am Sir, respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
W. L. Marcy.
n China Instr., pp. 84-86.]
APPENDIX B.
Government of Hawaii as a Territory of the
United States.^
CoDgress in providing for the government of Hawaii as an American Terri-
tory has been very liberal. In the original bill as presented by the commis-
sioners who visited the island, strong argument was presented in favor of a
property qualification for voters. It was feared that natives, with suffrage
unrestricted, would secure the control of the legislature, and might even be
able to override the veto of the governor. It was said that if the natives
should combine, it was reasonable to suppose that no white person could be
elected to a legislative seat.
After the overthrow of the monarchj' a property qualification had been
imposed upon the electors of senators. A conservative class was thus pro-
\aded, and held the other house in check. The system was recommended for
continuation.
The Congressional committee to which the Hawaiian bill was referred did
not retain the property-qualification feature. It acted upon the principle that
*' the right of free expression at the polls is in the nature of a safety valve,"
and that citizens of Hawaii should have the right to participate in their govern-
ment, irrespective of tax-paying ability. Hawaii had already shown herself
capable of maintaining a stable government. She had a system of laws based
upon American laws. She was familiar with Anglo-Saxon institutions and
language. She had voluntarily placed herself under the sovereignty of the
United States. Americans, although in a small minority, practically dominated
the governmental, financial and commercial affairs of the islands.-
Congress had never yet required a property qualification in any of the terri-
tories, (though in some cases there had been reason to suspect the danger of
riotous and ignorant legislation!, and it was not considered necessary to make
a local exception in the case of Hawaii.
1 See p. 134 supra
- The Hawaiian Islands are now occupied by the following races and nationalities :
Hawaiians and mixed blood 39,000
.1 apanese 25,000
Chinese 21,000
Port uguese 15,000
Americans 4,000
British 2,250
(iennans and other Europeans 2,000
Polynesians and miscellaneous ! ,250
Total 109,500
About TOO Chinese have been naturalized into the Hawaiian republic, and many Chinese
and Japanese are tliere under government permits and labor contracts, under which they
are bound to work for a term of years and to return to their own countries at tlie end of
their term of service.
The Chinese and Japanese possess no political power.
The Portuguese are largely Immigrants or descendants from immigrants from the islands
and colonies of Portugal in the Atlantic and are not closely allied in sentiment to their
native country.
The public school system makes the study of the English language compulsory. There
are l'?2 public and CO private schools, and education is compulsory and free as to all public
schools. American text-books are used in the schools. The language of business in English
and the decisions of American courts prevail as precedents.
170
Appendix B.
[170
GOVERNMENT
OK TITK
TEKKITOUY OF HAWAII
<Ai)ril30, 1900)
f Consists ok Two Housks.
(Section VZ)
Provisions common to hot li houses :
Genonil elcc-tioiis, first Tuesday
after tirst Monday in N<)\oml)er,
UHKl. and Viieiinially thereafter (If).
Each house jud^o of election, re-
turns, and ((ualilications of own
members ( 15). Can not. hold other
ofHce (ItVlT). Oath of olJico (lit).
Each determines its own rules.
One-fifth can demand ayes and"!
noes. Majority t-onstitutes (luo-
rum for business, e.vi'cjit on final
passiiffe ; then majority of all
members re(iuired(:,'2). Less than
quorum may adjourn and compel
attendance 133). Each house pun-
ishes members (35). Members e.v-
emi)1 from lialnlity elsewhere for
words (38). Arrest (3'.t). Salary,
$400 each session and 10 cents a
mile each way ; $300 extra session.
First session, third Wednesday,
February, I'JOl, and biennially
thereafter (41).
Special session may be convened
(43).
Sessions 60 days long-, e.\cept that
Kovernor may extend :iO days (43).
All procoedinj?s in English lan-
jruajfe (44).
Bills must pass three reading's on
separate days (4»ii, and final pas-
Ha>f<' must be on majority vote of
all members by ayes and noes.
Governor mav veto appropriation
bills in whole or in jiart (4!t).
Bills may be i)as.sed over veto by
two-f birds vote (.5(1).
'Shall extcinl to all
.rijfhtful subjects of
k'tfislation notini'on-
sislent with t he Con-
stitut ion and laws of
the liiiied Stat<'S lo-
cally api»licable."
Scope of
iMjwor.
Senate •{
Voting for
senators, '
I
I. House
S]<ecial limitations
May create counties
and town and city
municipalities, and
pro\ ide for the KOV-
ernment thereof.
Composed of 15 members ; 4 years ;
elected from 4 districts, alt'ornat-
injfT and s liieiniiallv CM). It.').
Vacancies lilled tiy election (31).
Must bo male citizens of Cnited
States. 30 years old, resitied in
Hawaii 3 years, tjualitled to vote
lor senators (34).
f Each voter may cast
one v«)te for each
senator from district
(61), anti rei|uired
number of candi-
dates rec(Mvin>r high-
est number of votes
shall be senators in
district ((51). Voters
must have qualifica-
tions of voters for
rei)rcsontatives, i. e.,
male citizen of the
United States, resi-
dence 1 year in Ha-
waii, 3 months in dis-
trict, 31 years old
(60-63); must register,
and bo able to speak,
read, and write Eng-
lish or Hawaiian (60).
Composed of 'M members, elect<'d
from 6 districts every second year
(35). Term until next genei-.il elec-
tion (3(), ;}8). Vacaiiries tilled at
general or special elections (37);
must be male citizens of I'nited
States, 35 years old, resided in
Hawaii 3 years, an<i <iualified to
vote for representatives (40).
■ Each voter ma.\' cast a
vote for as many rop-
resent;itives as are to
be ele(;ted from dis-
I rict (5i)),and rec|uired
number of candi-
dates receiviu),'- high-
est numi)er of votes
are elected (.I'.t'. Vo-
tt>rs, male citizens of
the United States, 31
years old, ha\e re-
sided in Hawaii 1
year, and in district
3 months : have reg-
istered, and able to
speak, read, and write
English or Hawaiian.
1. The legislaturi! shall not grant
any special or exclusive prixilcge,
immunity or franchise without
the approval of Congress.
3. It shall not grant private char-
ters, but may i>ass general acts
governing corporations.
3. It shall not gmnt di\ on-es.
4. It shall not grant money for sec-
tarian or pii\al<' sclu>ol,s.
5. The (Jo\ ernmenf , or any iK)litical
or nuinicipal corooration or sub-
(livision of the 'Peiiitory, shall
not mak<' any subscription to the
ca|>ital stock of am corporation,
nor lend its i redil tlierelor.
6. The legislature shall not auth(M'
lzeanyd<>l)t to be contract<>(l ex-
ceiit to pay inlei-est upoiu'xlsting
indebtedness, to suppress insur-
rt^ction, or ti» provide for lh(> com-
mon defense— and ex<'eiit loans
for the I'rectioii of pi-nal, charit-
able and <>ducalional inHtitutioiis,
and for public works.
^■oting f(n'
represent-
atives.
I
171]
Appendix B.
171
Governor
(Sec. 66J.
Powers
and du-
ties
L (66, 67).
The Executive. ^
Secretai-y
(66).
Other
executive
officers
Appointed
by the
Governor
for 4 years
(80).
r Appointed by President for 4 years and
until successor is appointed and quali-
fied. Shall be 35 years old and citizen
of Hawaii. Salary, $.5,000 (92) : $500 inci-
dentals, ti-aveling-, and $3,000 for pi-ivate
secretary.
f Shall be commander-in-chief of
militia ; may grant pardons or
reprieves for otfense* against
I Territory and against United
I States, pending decision b3'
1 President. When necessary
■^ may call upon military or
naval forces of the United
States in Hawaii, or summon
posse comitatus, or call out
militia; may suspend writ of
habeas corpus or place Terri-
tory under martial law; has
veto power; power of removal
when not otherwise provided
(80).
r 1. Judges circuit
i courts.
3. Attornej'-general.
Appoint- I 3. Treasurer,
ive power -[ 4. Commissioner of
L (80). public lands.
5. Commissioner of
agriculture.
6. Superintendent of
public works.
7. Superintendent of
public instruc-
tion.
8. Auditor.
9. Deputj- auditor.
10. Surveyor.
11. High sheriff.
13. Members board of
health.
13. Commissioners of
public instruc-
tion.
14. Boards of regis-
tration and in-
spectors of elec-
tions.
15. All other public
I boards.
f Appointed by President for 4 years and
until successor is appointed and quali-
tied. Salary, $3,000 (93).
I f Shall record and preserve all the
J I acts and proceedings of the
1 legislature and the governor,
I promulgate proclamations, and
Duties I transmit to the President of the
I and -{ United States copies of the
L powers, j laws, journals, and executive
I proceedings.
j Shall act as governor in case of
vacancy by death, removal,
I resignation, disability or ab-
l, sence of the governor.
( Attorney-general (71).
Treasurer (73).
Commissioner of public lands (73).
Commissioner of agriculture and forestry
(74).
Superintendent of public works (75).
Superintendent of public instruction (76).
Auditor ami deputy auditor (77).
Surveyor (7f>).
LHigh sheriff (79).
172
■1 Impend ix B.
[1'
;!. Tim: .IrniciAitY.
Hawaiian laws relative
to, are coiititiiu'ii iti
lurcf. except as modi-
ticil liy this Act; sub-
ject to iiioditlcation by
r<iiiKi"ess or lejrisla-
tiire (KJ>.
No person can sit as
jiidfro or juror who is
related by allinity or
i-onsaiijruinity to par-
ties within third dcffree 1.
or wht) shall be inter-
ested pecuniarily. pi'J"-
sonally. or through
rtdatives who are par-
tics !84).
f 1. Siipri'Mic I'ourt : One chi(>f justice (salary
$.'i,r>lKi), an<l two associates (salaries
$r),t)iH)), ai>pointed by the President of
the Tnited States by and with advice
f Hawaiian and consent of the Senate (8a), ami hold
Courts \ 4 years (HO).
(81). 'i. Circuit courts: The judges are appointed
by the governor, and liold for 4 years
(W).
3. Such inferior courts as the lesrislature
l^ shall I'roni time to time establish 1,H1\
President of the United States, liyand with
advice and consi'iit of the Seiiate, shall
appoint district judge 'K6). Shall have
jurisdiction of eiuses commonly cogniz-
able by both circuit and district courts
(KC).
Writs of error and appeals shall be had and
allowed to the circuit court of appeals in
the ninth judicial circuit of the United
States.
District attorney, salar}' $3,000, and mar-
shal, salary .'j-ti.otK) ('.f„'), appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate (8ti).
The district judge shall appoint a clerk
I (salary $3,000) and a reporter (salary $1200|.
Federal
District
Court
(«li).
The total indebtedness that may be incurred in any one year by the Territory, or
any such subdivision thereof, is limited to 1 per cent of the taxable projierty of the
Territory or any such subdivision as shown by the last general assessment; and th(-
total indebtedness of the Territory at anj' one time shall not exceed 7 per cent ot
assessed valuation ; nor shall the total indebtedness of any such subdivision of the
Territory at any one time exceed 3 jier cent of any such assessed valuation. However,
the Govemwcnt is not prevented from refunding existing indebtedness at any time.
No loans are to be made upon the public domain, and no bonds or other instruments
of indebtedness are to be issued unless redeemable in tlve years, payable in llfteen
years, and approved by the President of the United States.
1. Delegate to Congress.
Internal-revenue district.
ri. Cnsfoms ili-^trict.
t. Wharves
(Quarantine
Special Topics.
f There shall be a delegate to the United States House
I of Representatives (to be elected by voters qualified
I to vote for members of the house of representatives
j of Hawaii), who shall i)ossess (lualitieations of mera-
I bers of the senate of Hawaii ; time, place, and man
I ner of holding el(>ctions fixed l)y law (M).
j The Territory shall constitute an internal revenue
' district (8Ti.
1 The Territory shall constitute a customs district
with ports of entry and delivery at Honolulu, Hilo
' Makukona, and Kahului(8«).
r Whar\-esand landings shall remain under control of
j Hawaii, and revenues derived therefrom shall
j belong to Hawaii, i>ro\ iilecl same arc applied to
i their maint<>nance and repair (H<().
The (|uarantine regulations relating to the importa-
tion of diseases from other countries shall be under
the control of the (ir)vernment of the United
States; but the health laws of the government of
Hawaii relating to liarbors and infernal control
shall n-main in the jurisdiction of the govennnent
of Hawaii, subject to the (juarantlnc laws ami rcgu
lations of the United States (97).
7. Chinese certificates
of residence.
173] Appendix B. 1<3
f Previous residence in Hawaii shall be deemed equiva-
I lent to residence in the United States. The Ameri-
can regulation requiring a previous declaration of
6. Naturalization. •( intention to become a citizen of the United States,
j etc.. shall "not ai)ply to persons who have resided
I in the islands at least five years prior to the taking-
;. effect of this Act " (100).
f Chinese in Hawaiian Islands given one year to obtain
certificates of I'esidence as provided by the Act
of Congress appro\ed May 5, 1892, and amended
November 3, 1893 : but "no Chinese laborer, whether
he shall hold such certificate or not, shall be
I allowed to enter any State, Territory, or District of
L the United States from the Hawaiian Islands " UOl).
The provision (Sec. 6) extending the Constitution and laws of the T'nited
States placed the Chinese-exclusion law and the alien contract-labor law
immediately in force in the Territory of Hawaii.
The joint i-esolution of annexation provided that there should be no further
immigration of Chinese into Hawaii except as allowed by the laws of the
United States, and that no Chinese, bj- virtue of anything contained in the
joint resolution of annexation, should come to the United States from
Hawaii.
8. Hawaiian public lands.
The public-land system of the United States has not been extended to>
Hawaii. In some respects it is entirely inapplicable. It would be difficult to
establish an arbitrary rectangular system upon a peculiar system long in
practice.
The public-land system of Hawaii evolved from local conditions. The lands
are already occupied, and, from the very nature of the soil and character of
the inhabitants, are cut up into holdings of all sizes, the shape being generally
that of an irregular triangle, with its base on the coast line and its apex
toward the centre of the island.
There has alreadj' been established there a system of survey adapted to the
natural formation and contour of the islands. For illustration, all the islands
rise from the sea level, in some parts abruptly and in some parts gradually, to
a central elevation, and for purposes of cultivation the land is naturally
divided into lowland, fitted for the growth of taro and rice ; next above this
is sugar land, next coffee land, and then comes grazing and timber land.
Up to 1S4G all the lands of the Hawaiian Islands belonged in legal contem-
plation to the king. The chiefs and the people, under a feudal system closely
resembling the old English feudal system, held their respective parcels by
rendering service or payment of rent. In 1846 King Kamehameha III.
granted: (1) To his chiefs and people certain portions; (3) for govoriunent
purposes certain portions, (3) and reserved the remainder.
By an act, June 7, 1848, the legislature accepted the king's grant and con-
tirmed to the king, his heirs and successors, certain described lands which
were thenceforth known as crown lands. Under an act organizing executive
departments, a land commission was provided whose duty it was to receive
and pass upon the claims of occupants and lands to their respective holdings
in that portion of the land set apart for the chiefs and people. This com-
mission heard the testimony of claimants, caused surveys to be marie, and
issued to the occupants entitled thereto certificates called" Land commissioQ
174 Appendix B. [174
awards." Those awards csUiblisliud the rif^ht <>t the jrrantee to the possession
of the land and entitled him upon i)aj nient ol one-fourth of the value of the
bare land to receive a royal patent. These awards and patents issued pursuant
thereto are the source of all title to all lands not public lands or crown lands.
Ily an act of July 0. IH.50, one-twentieth of all imblic lands are set apart for
the support of schools. These lands are patented to a board of education,
which was empowered to sell and lease. Part of these lands is used for sites
for school building-s, part is leased, and part has been sold.
In 1W4 a homestead law on a small scale was provided but was little used,
only 2')ii i)atents having been issued in sixteen years.
In 18H4, tlie legislature jiassed " tlie hr ■' »ct of 1895." 15y this act the crown
lands were treated as having \ested in t public and were placed under the
control of a board of commission'-rs, ecu.' . ed of the secretary of the interior
and two persons api>ointed bj- the governor. They are now embniced as pul)lic
lands, and are under the control of a commissioner of i)ul)li<' lands. They
are subject to alienation and other uses as may be provided by law (99).
The island.s are divided into six land districts, with a siibagent of i)ublic
lands and ranges for each.
The j)ublie domain is divided into agricultur;il, pastoral, pastoral agricul-
tural, forest and waste lands.
The commissioners are authorized to dispose of these lands in the following
manner:
1. At public auction for cash in parcels not exceeding 1,(XX) acres.
:i. At public auction, part credit, in parcels not exceeding WW acres.
3. Without auction sale, in exchange for private lands or by way of compro-
mise.
4. Hy lease at public auction for not more than twenty-one years.
.5. Homestead leases.
(i. Kight-of-purchase leases.
7. Cash freeholds.
ITnder theactof Congressapprovcd Ain-illM), 1900, llie <()niniissioncr of jjublic
lands takes the place of the board of commissioners. The laws relating to
jniblic lands, the settlement of boundaries, and the issuance ol patents on
land-commission awards continue in force until (Congress shall provide other-
wise. Hut "no lease of agricultural land shall be granted, sold, or renewed
by the government of the Territory of Hawaii for a longer period than ttve
years until Congress shall otherwise direct." All funds arising Irora this dis-
posal of such lands shall lie appropriated bj- the Hawaiian goveriunent and
applied for the benefit of the inhabitants (73).
SUBJECT INDEX
Acquisition of Pacific ts-
LANDS; evolution of
American policy as to, 12
Jig, 126, 127-1^, 130, 137, 141,
151; guano islands, 69.
Aleutian Islands, 59, 70.
Alliance, American policy as
to, 52, 68; Anglo-American,
proposed, 90, 95, 97. 98, 100.
American maritime enterprise,
early, 13.
Anglo-American interests in the
Far East, cooperation, 14, 98,
104, 107; proposed alliance.
[See " Alliance."]
Astoria, 30.
Behring Sea. 33, 58.
Bonin Islands. 61, et seq. ; Per-
ry's policy for a colony on,
6s; proposition to take pos-
session of, 64; question of
ownership, 65.
Borneo, 74. 157.
China, earliest American trade
in, 10, 13, 84; Major Shaw,
first American consul to, 14;
early American voyages to,
21, 23; restricted trade policy
of, 85; reformed methods of,
after " Opium War," 86;
American policy as to, 83, 99,
loi, 104, 108, 109, no, [see
" Far East "] ; American ne-
gotiations with, 87, 91, et seq.,
94, 97, 102; treaties with, 88,
105, 109; Taiping rebellion in,
91 et seq., 96; indications of
change in, 156; and the Rus-
sian policy, 159.
Chinese diplomacy, 87, 92. 94.
102.
Cochin China, 74.
Colonial establishments, distant
— feared by the Senate, 52;
suggested, 61; the Bonin
Island colony, 60 et seq.; fav-
ored by Perry, 65, 67.
Colonies, marine, 54.
Corea, in- 113; need of reforms
in, 112.
Corsairs, Peruvian, 10, 25.
Deserters, 39, 40, 42, 48, 64.
Discipline of crews, necessity
for strict, 29, 37.
Discovery, of islands by Ingra-
ham, 19; expeditions of, 24,
55, 58.
Eastern and Far Eastern ques-
tions, 155.
Expansion to California and
Oregon, effect on the Ameri-
can policy in the Pacific, 76,
78, 89, 90.
Exploring Expedition, U. S.,
suggested, 24, 50; petitions
for, 50; discussed in Congress,
51 et seq.; opposed bj' Sen-
ate, 52; authorized, 53; pur-
poses of, 53-55; delay, causes
of, 54; organized, 55; work of,
56, 58; results. 58.
Far East, earliest American ne-
gotiations for ports in, 11, 48;
increase of American concern
in the, 91 ; Anglo-American
interests in, 14, 90; American
opportunity and duty in, 12,
no, 159, 160, 162; and the
Eastern questions, 155, 156;
recent changes in, 155; Rus-
sian plans as to. 159.
Fiji Islands. 24. 43, 45, 53. 55,
57, 69.
Fisheries, as a school for Amer-
ican seamen, 13.
176
Subject Iticicx,
[176
Foreign policy, 91. [See
" China," " Japan," " Samoa,"
and " Hawaii. "J
Formosa. 66. 67; proposed oc-
cupation of, 98, 99.
Galapagos Islands, 48. 60.
Great Britain, American coop-
eration with. 14. 98, 104. 107;
proposed alliance with. 90, 95.
97. 98. 100; and Russian ri-
valry in Asia. 157.
Guano Islands, 69.
Hawaii [see "Sandwich
Islands "], Americanization
of, 1 14-134; early policy of the
U. S. as to, 114. 117; develop-
ment of annexation' policy,
1 19-123, 125. 126, 128, 130-131;
American treaties with, 40,
118, (123). (124), 127; consti-
tutional history notes, 131-
134; present territorial gov-
ernment. 168. [Appendix.]
Ingraham's voyage. 17: discov-
ery of islands, 19; trade, 20.
Intervention, suggested as to
Japan, 77; suggested as to
China, 95.
Isolation policy, favored, 52,
138; opposed, 90, 162.
Isthmian transit routes, need of,
40.
Japan, foreign policy of, 72 et
seq.; early American voyages
to, 73 et seq.: American de-
termination to secure inter-
course with, 76; Perry's ex-
pedition to, 78 et seq.; nego-
tiation of treaties with, 81, 82,
84.
Lohos Islands. 24. 69.
Loo Choo Islands, proposed oc-
cupation of. 65, 78; Perry at,
80.
Madison Island (Nukuhiva),
discovered by Ingraham, 19;
occupation by Capt. Porter,
26; American intervention in,
27: visited by the I'wcciwc;.
4'-
Manila, 10, 44, 58.
Marquesas Islands, 18.
Midway Islands, 70.
Monroe doctrine, and the Pa-
cific coast, 35; and policy in
the Pacific. 52; and the Far
East, 90, no; and Samoa, 138,
146.
Morrell's voyages and adven-
tures, 4.3-45-
Muscat, 74.
Mutiny, 28. 38. 48.
Natives of islands, character of,
18, 19, 28. 44. 47. 53-
Naval and coaling stations. 66.
70. 77. 125. 137, 139, 150.
Navy, operations in the Pacific,
10, II. 25, 39-42. 47, 55, 59, 76.
79, 98, 107. Ill, 129, 130. 136,
143, 150; need of increase. 54.
59-
Northwest coast, early com-
mercial enterprise between
China and. 13; Jefferson's in-
terest in. 14. 30; the Colum-
bia at Nootka. 16; conflict-
ing national claims on. 20, 31.
[See " Pacific Coast."]
" Open door." 66. 91, no, 160.
Orient, unlocking the. 72 et
seq.; American duty in. 12,
no. 159. 160. 162.
Pacific, the; early European
voyages to. 9; early American
voyages to. 10: beginning of
the American navy in. 10, 11;
Wilkes' expedition to. 11, 55;
increase of American interests
in. 32; need of a larger navy
in. 54. 59: policy as to acquir-
ing islands in. 12. 70. no. T26.
127-128. 130. 137, 141, 151:
guano islands of. 6q.
Pacific coast, the; increase of
American interest on. 30;
proposed plan for settlement
of. 32; desire to acquire ports
on. 35; and the Monroe <ioc-
trine. 35; acquisition of Cali-
fornia. 36. I See "North-
west coast."]
Peel Island colony. 61 et seq.
177]
Subject Index.
177
Peruvian Corsairs, lo, 25.
Philippines, 10, 56, 149-155; and
American opportunity in the
Far East, no, 155-164; early
American interest in, 149; oc-
cupation, 151; cession by
Spain, 152; American respon-
sibility and policy in, 153-155,
163-164.
Pioneers in trade and discov-
ery, 13 et seq.
Piracy, 23, 40, 109.
Russia, claims in the North Pa-
cific, 31, 2>2i'y American trea-
ties with, 34; settlements of
early American trade with, 22,
33; and British rivalry in
Asia, 157; expansion policy
of, 158.
Samoa, 46, 55, 57; strategic po-
sition of, 136; proposed
American orotection or an-
nexation of, 137, 140; inter-
nal troubles, 138, 140, 142,
145; treaty with, 139; inter-
national complications in, 142,
147; tripartite arrangement
for, 140, 143; partition of, 148.
Sandwich Islands, early Ameri-
can vessels at, 16, 40, 41, 42,
43; early traffic with, 17; In-
graham at, 19, 21; native wars
in, 19: a resort for traders
and whalers, 22; and Astoria
settlement, 31; Russian de-
signs in, 32; a depot for sup-
plies, 39; treaty with, 40; im-
portance to American inter-
ests, 40; difficulties of mis-
sionaries m, 39, 115; sources
of dispute in, 43. [See " Ha-
waii."]
Sealing in the South Pacific, 22,
Shipwrecks, 24, 45, 47, 53, 58,
.74, 75-
Siam, y2>-
Society Islands, 41, 53, 55.
South America, west coast of;
American influence on, 10, 25,
34; agitated by the appear-
ance of the Columbia, 16.
Sulu Sea, 56, 58. '
Sumatra, 47, 53.
Tahiti, 41, 56.
Trade, direct Chinese-North-
west; American control of,
21; influence, 22.
Voyages, (special); of the Etti-
press of China, 13; of the Co-
lumbia, etc., 15; of the Hope,
17 et seq.; of the Betsey, 23;
of the Aspasia, 23; of the Es-
sex, 25; of the Dolphin, 39; of
the Vincennes, 41; of the Ant-
arctic, 43; of the Margaret Oak-
ley, 44; of the Potomac, 47.
Wake Island, 24, 69.
Washington Island, Ingraham
at, 20.
Whalers, early relations with
the natives, ^7 et seq.
Whaling interests. American,
10, 22, 50; protection by Capt.
Porter, 10, 26.
World Power, United States as
a, 12, no, 159, 162.
STATE ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO
LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES
Series XIX Nos. 4-5
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor
History is past Politics and Politics are present History. — Freeman
STATE ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO
LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES
By WILLIAM FRANKLIN WILLOUGHBY
{U. S. 'Department of Labor)
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
APRIL-MAY, 1901
Copyright 1901, by
JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
THF. HRIEnENWALD COMPANY
BALTIMORB, MD., U. S. A.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface 7
Chapter I. — Bureaus of Statistics of Labor 9
II. — Employment Bureaus 18
III. — The Inspection of Factories and Workshops .... 33
IV. — Regulation of the Sweating System 61
V. — The Inspection of Mines 72
VI. — Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration 86
PREFACE
It is a matter of interest to students both of economics
and politics to trace the widening sphere of action of the
American States in relation to labor. Something over ten
years ago I had occasion, in a paper read before the Ameri-
can Historical Association/ to call attention to the fact
that, whatever might be the general decline in importance
of the individual commonwealths of our Union, a very
great extension of their activities had taken place since the
Civil War in respect to matters relating to the economic
interests of their citizens. This intervention, as was then
shown, was not in the way of the direct performance or even
the promotion of works of public interest, but rather in the
creation of boards, bureaus and commissions, having for
their purpose, either the investigation and publication of
economic conditions, as is done, for instance, by boards of
agriculture, geological surveys, and bureaus of statistics of
labor, or the supervision of particular lines of industry, such
as banking, insurance, transportation, and factory and mine
work.
This movement for the extension of state action has con-
tinued with unabated strength during the past decade in all
the lines of activities there considered. In none, however,
has this intervention advanced with greater rapidity, or pro-
ceeded further, than in that relating directly to conditions
under which labor shall be performed. This action may be
divided into two distinct classes; that in which the interven-
tion of the state is limited to the mere enactment of laws in
relation to labor, and that in which the state itself under-
takes, through the executive branch of its government, to
^ State Activities and Politicc.
8 Preface. [186
perform certain work. The scope of the present chapters
is restricted to a consideration of only the second class of
these activities, namely, those wherein the state itself
assumes the performance of certain duties. The general
title of " state activities," rather than state action, in rela-
tion to labor has been selected, though it cannot be said
that this choice of words adequately conveys the distinc-
tion that is made.
The substance of the pages that follow has been pre-
viously published in one form or another. The chapter
relating to the inspection of factories was first published as
a report to the International Congress in Relation to Labor
Legislation, Brussels, 1897, and afterwards republished in
Bulletin No. 12 of the U. S. Department of Labor. The
one on inspection of mines appeared as a chapter in " The
Mineral Industry: Its Statistics, Technology and Trade,
1896," and it is desired here to acknowledge the kindness of
Mr. Richard P. Rothwell, its editor, in permitting its use in
this place. These two and the other papers also consti-
tuted numbers of the series of " Monographs on American
Social Economics," edited by Prof. Herbert B. Adams and
published by the Department of Social Economy for the
United States Commissioner to the Paris Exposition of
1900.
It is thought that a useful purpose will be served in bring-
ing these papers together in a single monograph, as they
cover in a fairly complete way the action of the American
States in a distinct line of cfifort. All the papers, it should
be said, have been rigidly revised with the purpose of elim-
inating unnecessary matter, bringing the information to
date, and making it harmonize with the scope of the present
monograph.
STATE ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO
LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES
CHAPTER I.
BUREAUS OF STATISTICS OF LABOR.
To the United States belongs the honor of having first
created an official bureau for the special purpose of collect-
ing and publishing statistical information in relation to
labor. The first official action looking toward this end is to
be found in the report of a special commission of the legis-
lature of Massachusetts, February 6, 1866, which among
others things, recommended " that provision be made for the
annual collection of reliable statistics in regard to the con-
dition, prospects and wants of the industrial classes." In
the following year, January i, a second commission unan-
imously recommended " that a bureau of statistics be estab-
lished for the purpose of collecting and making available
all facts relating to the industrial and social interests of the
Commonwealth." In pursuance of these recommendations
Massachusetts created the first bureau of labor statistics by
a law dated June 22, 1869.
The example of Massachusetts, which had thus led the
way, was soon followed in 1872 by Pennsylvania, and in
1873 by Connecticut. Since then the number of states main-
taining such bureaus has constantly increased until at the
present time there are 29 states with such offices. In addi-
tion to these a number of states have created bureaus, a
part of whose duties is apparently, according to provisions
of the laws creating them, the collection of statistics of labor.
As they have, however, done little or nothing, as yet, in the
10 State Activities in Relation to Labor i)i the U. S. [188
\vay of publishing labor statistics they are not included in
the number given above. Two states, South Dakota and
Utah, created bureaus of labor, but have since abolished
them. In 1884 the United States created a bureau of labor
under the interior department, which in 1888 was trans-
formed into the existing department of labor.
In the following statement is given a list of the bureaus
of labor statistics existing in the United States and the years
in which they were established. In a number of cases the
bureaus were not organized for work till the year following
that in which they were created.
It would not be practicable to give the organization
of each of these bureaus. In general the personnel of each
bureau consists of a chief or commissioner and occasionally
a deputy commissioner appointed by the governor of the
state, and a few clerks, often not more than two or three.
Special mention, however, should be made of the organiza-
tion of the Kansas bureau as reconstituted by the recent law
of January 11, 1899.
This law provides for a radical departure from the method
employed by the other states in the organization of the
bureau and the selection of its ofificers. The law in brief
provides that any organization of seven or more working-
men for the purpose of studying labor conditions or the im-
provement or promotion of the branches of labor repre-
sented by them, or for certain other purposes, shall have the
right of sending one delegate for the first 50 members or
fraction thereof and one delegate for each additional 100
members to the annual meeting of the State Society of Labor
and Industry to be held at the state capital.
Upon assembling, these delegates shall organize as the
State Society of Labor and Industry above mentioned, and
shall elect a president, vice-president, secretary and assistant
secretary, "which officials shall constitute a state bureau of
labor and industry, and the secretary shall be ex-officio the
commissioner of the bureau. The president and vice-presi-
dent are elected annually, but the secretary and assistant
189] Bureaus of Statistics of Labor. 11
No. state. Official name of office. eatabffshed.
1 Massachusetts .... Bureau of Statistics of Labor 1869
2 Pennsylvania Bureau of Industrial Statistics 1873
3 Connecticut Bureau of Labor Statistics 1873 '
4 Ohio Bureau of Statistics of Labor 1877
5 New Jersey Bureau of Statistics of Labor
and Industries ''
I 1879
6 Indiana Bureau of Statistics 1879
7 Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics
and Inspection
8 Illinois Bureau of Labor Statistics. , . .' 1879
9 California Bureau of Labor Statistics 1883
10 Wisconsin Bureau of Labor and Industrial ) iqgq
Statistics \ ••■' ^*^^^
11 New York Bureau of Labor Statistics 1883
12 Michigan Bureau of Labor and Industrial ) ^„„„
Statistics \ -^"^"^
13 Maryland Bureau of Industrial Statistics | isqa
and Information j- . . . .
14 Iowa Bureau of Labor Statistics 1884
15 United States Department of Labor 1884 2
16 Kansas State Bureau of Labor and Industry . . 1885 3
17 North Carolina . . . Bureau of Labor Statistics 1887
18 Maine Bureau of Industrial and Labor ~i ^ qq„
Statistics / ^^^'
19 Minnesota Bureau of Labor Statistics 1887
30 Colorado Bureau of Labor Statistics 1887
21 Rhode Island Bureau of Industrial Statistics 1887
22 Nebraska Bureau of Labor and Industrial ) -lOQiy
Statistics f ^^''^
23 West Virginia Bureau of Labor 1889 *
24 North Dakota .... Department of Labor and Statistics. . . 1889
25 Tennessee Bureau of Labor Statistics and Mines. 1891
26 Kentucky Bureau of Agriculture, Labor ) ^ „„^ 5
and Statistics \
27 Montana Bureau of Agriculture, Labor "(
and Industry / ^^^"^
28 New Hampshire. . . Bureau of Labor 1893
29 Washington Bureau of Statistics, Labor, Ag- )
riculture and Immigration !-••••
30 Virginia Bureau of Labor and Industrial
Statistics
1898
' Abolished in 1875 ; reestablished in 1885.
^ Created as a bureau under the Interior Department in 1884 ; established
as a department in iws.
^ Keorg-ani/.ed >)y law of .Taniiary II, 1899.
* First rejjort i)ul>!islie(l in IS'.H.
= First establislicci Marcli ^;(i, isvfi, as Bureau of Ag-riculture, Horticulture
and Statistics. It was rcort^auized, had its duties enlarged, and was given its
present title April 2, 1892.
12 State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [190
secretary hold office for two years and can be reelected.
A permanent office for the bureau is provided in the state
capitol. Provision is also made for a stenographer, and the
connnissioner is given the power to employ special agents
and other assistants as may be necessary. The following
salaries and appropriations for the work of the bureau are
provided by the act: commissioner $1500, assistant com-
missioner $1200, stenographer $720, for special agents and
other assistants $800, for postage and expressage $800,
traveling and other expenses $1500.
The powers and duties of the bureau are practically the
same as those of other state bureaus of labor. The most
significant feature of this scheme is that it provides for the
creation under state auspices of a general society to consist
of delegates of labor organizations, and that the appointment
of officers of the state bureau of labor and therefore their
control is taken away from the governor and given to this
society and therefore absolutely into the hands of the work-
ingmen themselves. The law is a unique piece of legisla-
tion, and its workings may be followed with interest.
Regarding the resources at the command of these labor
bureaus the appropriations for their support are usually
small in amount, being but little more than sufficient to pay
the salaries of the commissioner and his assistants. The
United States department of labor, on the other hand, pos-
sesses an effective organization. At its head is the com-
missioner of labor. Under him the force consists of a chief
clerk, a disbursing clerk, four statistical experts, 51 clerks,
messengers and laborers, and 20 special agents. In addi-
tion, from 20 to 30 experts are carried on the temporary roll,
their salaries being paid from a special appropriation for
the payrrfent of the expenses of agents in the field and the
employment of extra experts as required by the work of the
department. The total force of the department thus varies
from no to 115. The work of the department is clearly
divided into field and office work. The 20 special agents
constitute the field force and except in rare cases are con-
191] Bureaus of Statistics of Labor. 13
tinuously in the field collecting the information desired by
the department. When necessary, they are assisted by
members of the office force temporarily detailed for that
purpose.
The total regular appropriation for the department for the
year, 1899-1900, was $172,980. This does not include
$8000 appropriated to defray the cost of the printing and
binding required by the department in the prosecution of its
work, nor the cost of printing and binding the regular re-
ports and bulletins of the department.
Turning now to the duties of these bureaus, their primary
function in all cases is the publication of material showing
labor conditions; and these offices are therefore, in spite of
their various titles, known under the general name of labor
bureaus. It is important to note, however, that the efforts
of most if not all of the bureaus are directed towards ob-
taining and publishing information concerning social con-
ditions other than those strictly relating to labor. Thus the
act creating the Massachusetts bureau, which has served as
the model for the acts of the other states, says that " the
duties of such bureau shall be to collect, assort, systematize
and present in annual reports . , . statistical details relating
to all departments of labor in the Commonw^ealth, specially
in its relations to the commercial, industrial, social, educa-
tional and sanitary condition of the laboring classes, and to
the permanent prosperity of the productive industry of the
Commonwealth."
The law creating the United States department of labor
gives the new department, if possible, even broader powers
to investigate any subject at all concerning the economic
or industrial condition of the country. Section i of the law
thus reads: " There shall be at the seat of the government
a department of labor, the general design and duties of
which shall be to acquire and diffuse among the people of
the United States useful information on subjects connected
with labor in the most general and comprehensive sense of
that word, and especially upon its relation to capital, the
11 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [192
hours of labor, the earnings of laboring men and women,
and the means of promoting their material, social, intellect-
ual and moral prosperity."
Acting either under their general powers, or as the result
of specific legislative powers, most of the bureaus, there-
fore, publish statistics concerning subjects other than labor,
as agriculture, production, penal and reformatory institu-
tions, education, taxation, etc.
The results of the investigations made by the bureaus are
for the most part published in annual or biennial reports.
The majority of the bureaus issue annual reports. Those
of the following states, however, publish theirs biennially:
Indiana, Illinois, California, Wisconsin, Maryland, Iowa,
Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washing-
ton and Virginia. It will be seen that with the exception of
Maryland and Virginia the practice of issuing reports bien-
nially is confined to the middle western and western states.
In a number of cases publications other than the regular
annual or biennial reports are issued. The United States
department of labor thus issued special reports, and since
November, 1895, issues a bimonthly bulletin. The Mas-
sachusetts bureau publishes the results of the state cen-
suses, an annual report concerning manufactures, and since
January, 1897, a bulletin which appears quarterly. The
New York bureau likewise issues a quarterly bulletin. The
Illinois bureau makes an annual report concerning coal
mining, and a number of bureaus issue bulletins giving the
labor laws of the states.
The main purpose of these bureaus, as has been said, is
the collection and publication of information in relation to
labor and social conditions generally. In addition to this
duty, however, these bureaus have, in a number of cases,
been entrusted with other duties. A brief mention should
be made of these in order to give a complete idea of the
character and activities of these bureaus.
At least two of the states, Massachusetts and Rhode Is-
land, provide that the state census shall be taken by these
193] Bureaus of Statistics of Labor. 15
offices. In a number of cases the commissioner of labor
has been entrusted with the duties of factory inspection and
the enforcement of the labor laws of the state. This is true
of the states of Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. In two
of these states, Missouri and Tennessee, the commissioner
of labor is also required to act as the inspector of mines.
In Maine there is a special inspector of factories, but he is
required to report to the commissioner of labor, and his
reports are published in the annual reports of the latter.
In North Dakota and Missouri the commissioner of labor
is directed to intervene in labor disputes for the purpose of
attempting their mediation or arbitration, and by the recent
act of June i, 1898, the United States commissioner of labor
is directed, in conjunction with the chairman of the Inter-
state commerce commission, to act in much the same way
for the settlement of labor disputes affecting railroads en-
gaged in interstate traffic.
Within recent years a very important movement has de-
veloped for the creation of free public employment bureaus.
Such action has been taken by the states of Ohio, New
York, Illinois, Missouri, California and Maryland, and in
all cases these offices are placed under the supervision or
direct management of the state bureau of labor. In the
three states first named quite elaborate systems have been
created, and their work thus constitutes a not unimportant
part of the services of the bureaus of labor to which they
are attached. Further details are not given, as a full ac-
count of their organization and operation will be found in
the special chapter devoted to that subject.
A few words should be said regarding the system of work
of the United States department of labor, a system also
employed in Massachusetts, as it constitutes the most scien-
tific application of the statistical method attempted in any
statistical bureau, and as such has profoundly influenced
methods of statistical inquiry throughout the world. The
system is one which originated in this country and thus
16 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [194
constitutes a positive contribution on the part of the United
States to statistical science. It is thus described by the
commissioner of labor:
The information under any investigation is usually collected on
properly prepared scheduks of inquiry in the hands of expert
special agents, by which means only the information which pertains
to the investigation is secured. Rambling and nebulous observa-
tions, which would be likely to result from an investigation carried
on by inquiries not properly scheduled, are thus avoided. The
great advantages of this method have been demonstrated by many
years of experience. Sometimes the peculiar conditions accom-
panying an investigation admit of the use of the mail, but as a rule
the attempt to collect information upon, any given subject under
investigation through the mail has proved a failure. With properly
instructed special agents, who secure exactly the information re-
quired, who are on the spot to make any explanation to parties
from whom data are sought, and who can consult the books of
account at the establishment under investigation, the best and most
accurate information can be secufed, and in a condition for tabula-
tion; in fact, sometimes under this method the tabulation is partly
accomplished by the form of inquiry and answer as shown by the
schedule.
After the information is brought into the office the schedules
containing it are subjected to the most careful scrutiny for the pur-
pose of ascertaining whether there are any logical faults or incon-
gruities in it. If such are found the agent furnishing it is called
upon to verify his work. Under such circumstances a schedule
could not be accepted, and there must be a reexamination. When
the schedules are all verified the classifications and tabulations are
made, every calculation being subjected to rigid verification in the
preparation of copy for the press, and in the reading of the proof
all original calculations must again be verified, all references re-
examined, and every care taken to guard against typographical
as well as clerical errors. Figures from the officers of the depart-
ment or from the most skilled expert in it are never allowed to be
printed until verified.
It is not an easy matter to set forth the specific way in
which these organizations have justified their creation,
through reforms brought about as the result of their work.
The same difficulty is here mei with as in the effort to show
the good resulting from the work of a university. We
know, nevertheless, that they have accomplished a great
deal of good. Col. Wright, the United States commis-
sioner of labor, in his article on " The value and influence of
195] Bureaus of Statistics of Labor. 17
labor statistics " in the Engineering Magazine for Novem-
ber, 1893, enumerates a number of instances in which posi-
tive remedial legislation of great value has resulted from
their investigations. Among these were laws removing
evils connected with tenement houses, the truck system, em-
ployers' liability, employment agencies, sweating system,
etc.
On the other hand it is well to admit that the work of
many of the bureaus is far from as valuable as it is desir-
able that it should be, and there are few classes of social data
that should be used by students of economics with greater
discrimination.
While the work of many of the older bureaus is of a high
order, that of others, owing either to the smallness of the
appropriations available for their support, or because the
need for trained economists or statisticians as their direct-
ing heads is not recognized, is of comparatively little value.
In this connection it is a matter of congratulation to note
the calling of a specialist in economics, Dr. Adna F. Weber,
by the state of New York as Deputy Commissioner of
Labor, an action which has already borne fruit in a number
of interesting reports.
In spite of this failure on the part of a number of the
bureaus to reach the highest standard in their work, few
will deny that, as a whole, the results achieved have justi-
fied their creation. In a democratic country such knowl-
edge of conditions as they give may almost be said to be
essential. For one reason or another many of the best
writings of economists never reach the eyes of the actual
business man and worker. The labor reports receive a
wide circulation among such classes of the population, and
but for them the industrial population would have little
opportunity of gaining information concerning labor con-
ditions in their general aspects as affecting the whole people.
14
CHAPTER II.
EMPLOYMENT BUREAUS.
An examination of the subject of employment bureaus in
the United States involves a consideration of two distinct
kinds of institutions: private employment offices, or intelli-
gence agencies, as they are frequently called, and free public
employment bureaus organized in connection with the
bureaus of labor statistics of a number of the states. The
aims and purposes of these two kinds of institutions are
radically diflFerent. The first are purely money-making un-
dertakings organized by individuals for the purpose of per-
sonal gain. The second are organized under the auspices
of the state and are public institutions for the assistance of
the working classes. The first are now looked on often as
an evil; the second are beneficent institutions contributing
to the welfare of the laboring men.
Though the consideration of the regulation of private
employment bureaus does not properly fall within the scope
of our present study, it is necessary to give some reference
to it in order to show the reasons leading up to the decision
of the states to maintain such bureaus as state institutions.
Private employment agencies have existed in the United
States for a great many years. They seem to have been very
prosperous undertakings from the standpoint of financial
gain to their promoters, as it is not unusual for as many as
forty or. fifty offices to be found in a single city. Appar-
ently there is no reason why such agencies, especially in the
absence of a free employment bureau, could not be of con-
siderable use in assisting the unemployed to find positions,
and there is little doubt that in some cases where they are
honestly administered good is accomplished. The trouble
197] Employment Bureaus. 19
is that such cases of honest management form the exception.
Having to do with an ignorant and helpless class these agen-
cies are in a great many cases but institutions for defrauding
and victimizing the poor people. Exorbitant fees are
charged for the mere registering of applicants for work, and
afterwards little or no effort is made to secure positions for
them. Advertisements are inserted in the daily newspapers
for laborers of a certain class when there is not the slightest
demand for such labor. In fact, all sorts of deception and
extortion are resorted to. In some cases the office is in
connection with a saloon, in order to get the applicants to
spend the little money they have in drink while waiting for
employment.
The state labor bureaus have repeatedly made investiga-
tions of these employment agencies, always with the result
that they were condemned as injurious institutions. Thus
the commissioner of the Missouri labor bureau in his report
for 1897 says:
Not all of the employment agencies can be classed as fraudulent,
but in all the investigations made by this department in St. Louis
alone, a large majority of them were found to outrival in their
methods the worst gambling and confidence games in this city.
Yet their systems of robbery are so cunningly devised and so skil-
fully operated that it is almost impossible to convict them under
the existing law.
The Maryland commissioner of labor, as a result of a
special examination of these agencies, in his report for 1896
says:
The inquiry, together with what came under our immediate
notice, emphasized that reliable agencies were able to do some
good, but that the unreliable ones would justify a statement to the
effect that their existence is a standing menace to those compelled
to seek the aid of employment agencies, greatly overshadowing all
other considerations, and causing people to concur in the opinion
that the unemployed would have a less rugged road to travel with-
out this proflfered assistance.
It is unnecessary to comment further on these abuses. It
is sufficient to say, that not only has the establishment of
20 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [198
employment agencies under private auspices contributed
but little or nothing to the solution of the problem of unem-
ployment, but their existence has developed evils which far
outweigh any advantages obtained in isolated cases. The
result of these abuses is that in quite a number of states
special legislation has been enacted looking to their suppres-
sion or at least rigid control. The essential character of this
legislation can be briefly set forth:
An examination of the labor laws of the states shows that
12 states, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachu-
setts, Minnesota, Montana, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, have enacted legis-
lation of some kind in regard to employment agencies.
Of these, the laws passed by a great many of the states
are of comparatively little importance. The laws of New
Jersey and Rhode Island simply provide that the cities and
towns of the state, may, if they desire to do so, require any
person desiring to open an employment agency to obtain
a license from the municipal authorities, and may fix the
sum to be paid for such license. The Missouri law merely
makes it a misdemeanor punishable by law for an employ-
ment agency to accept a fee or remuneration of any kind
unless a situation is secured for the person making the pay-
ment. The Massachusetts law in like manner prohibits the
taking of a fee unless a position is secured. The Louisiana
law provides that persons desiring to conduct employment
agencies must obtain licenses and give a suitable bond. The
Colorado law fixes the amount to be paid for a license at
not more than $ioo, and requires a bond of $2000. The
Pennsylvania law fixes the license fee for employment
agencies at $50, and provides that the proprietor of any such
agency giving false information or making false promises
concerning positions to be obtained shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and be prosecuted criminally by the state.
The New York law is very similar. In Minnesota the
license fee is fixed at $100 and the bond at $10,000. In
Illinois the license fee is $200 and the bond $1000. The
199] Employment Bureaus. 21
Maine law says that the mayors of towns may grant licenses
to employment agencies on the payment of $i, and pro-
hibits the charging of a fee unless a position is secured.
It will be seen from the foregoing that the legislation in
all of the states taking action in regard to this question is
along the same lines. The essential points are: that
a license must be obtained; that no fees can be collected
unless a position is secured for the person making the pay-
ment; that a bond must be given from which damages
resulting from any fraud or misrepresentation on the part
of the agency may be paid; and that any agency making
fraudulent misrepresentation or promises shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and as such, amenable to criminal
prosecution. No one law embraces all these points. But
the enumeration given indicates the points covered and
shows the general character of the legislation. The text of
all these laws may be consulted in the report of the Depart-
ment of Labor on labor laws in the United States, second
edition, 1896 (see heading " employment agencies " in index
for references to exact pages), and the Bulletins of the
Department.
From the study of private employment agencies organ-
ized as money-making schemes, we now turn to an exam-
ination of the much more interesting class of free employ-
ment bureaus organized under the auspices of the state.
It is possible that some of the cities may have organized
municipal employment bureaus, but if they have done so
it is impossible to obtain any detailed information concern-
ing them." During the industrial depression beginning
with the year 1893 3. great many of the cities did more or
less in the way of attempting to find employment for those
out of work. Such action was, however, temporary and
can not be considered as creating employment bureaus
properly speaking. Our examination here, therefore, must
" Since the above was written, information has been received of
the interesting- and important municipal employment bureau of
Seattle, Washington.
22 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [200
be restricted to the employment bureaus organized by the
state bureaus of labor.
At the present time there are quite a number of such
bureaus in operation. The beginning was made by the
state of Ohio in 1890. It may not be uninteresting to call
attention to the fact that the creation of the Ohio bureau,
and, therefore, the inauguration of free employment bureaus
in tlie United States, is directly due to the influence of sim-
ilar institutions in France. On the occasion of the Paris
international exposition of 1889, a league of newspapers
sent a delegation of prominent labor men to Europe to
study old world conditions. Among the members of this
league was W. T. Lewis, who afterwards became the chief
of the Ohio bureau of labor statistics. Mr. Lewis was par-
ticularly impressed with the work of labor bureaus in Paris
and brought it to the attention of the laboring people of
Ohio. The Municipal Labor Congress of Cincinnati, an
organization of the trade and labor unions of the city, took
the matter up, and urged the creation of a similar institu-
tion in Ohio. Its recommendation was favorably received,
and a law was passed in 1890 directing the commissioner of
labor to create in each of the five principal cities of the state
a free public employment bureau.
For some time this action on the part of Ohio remained
without imitators on the part of other states. The results
accomplished, however, attracted attention, and other states
began to examine the question. On May 28, 1896, New
York passed a law requiring the organization of a similar
office in New York city by the bureau of labor of the state,
and on April 13, 1897, the state of Nebraska did the same.
Finally Illinois by Act of April 17, 1899, has made the most
elaborate provision for the establishment of a system of free
public employment bureaus yet attempted by any state.
Though these are the only states that, by legislation,
have specifically authorized the creation of a free state em-
ployment bureau, in a number of others the commissioners
of labor have believed tliat they had the power under the
201] Employment Bureaus. 23
general acts creating their bureaus to establish such offices.
Missouri, California, Kansas and Maryland thus created
free employment bureaus in connection with their labor
bureaus which are identical in character with those specific-
ally created by law. The California bureau was created
about July, 1895, when a great many workingmen and
women were out of employment, and its expenses were en-
tirely borne by private subscription. It continued in opera-
tion only about a year, as the return of better times removed
the pressing need of its services.
The Kansas bureau is conducted on a small scale. The
commissioner of the labor bureau writes:
By reason of our close touch to organized labor and the working-
men in this state, we have estabhshed a voluntary free employment
agency where both the employers and persons seeking employment
may register and thereby be aided to employment. This voluntary
agency may be said to be local in its character, being confined
largely to the city and vicinity.
In 1893 Montana, in the law creating a bureau of labor
statistics, provided that its commissioner should maintain
in his office a free public employment bureau, and also
granted permission to any city to open a similar office if it
desired to do so. In 1897, however, that portion of the law
requiring the commissioner of labor to maintain a free em-
ployment bureau in his office was repealed. It was pro-
vided, however, that the employment bureaus established
by the cities should report to the commissioner of labor
and he in turn to report on their operation.
At the present time, therefore, free public employment
bureaus are maintained by the labor bureaus of seven states,
Ohio, Nebraska, New York, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and
Maryland.
Of these bureaus, the system recently created by Illinois
is much the most elaborate and consequently bids fair to be
the most important. In the following paragraphs its most
essential features are briefly summarized.
The law provides that a free public employment bureau
24 State Activities in Relation to Labor in ilic U. S. [202
shall be created in each city of the state with a population
of 50,000 or over, and that three such offices shall be opened
in every city (of which Chicago is the only example) con-
taining a population of 1,000,000 or over. These offices are
to be designated as " Illinois free employment offices." On
the recommendation of the commissioner of labor, the gov-
ernor shall appoint a superintendent, assistant superinten-
dent and a clerk for each of the offices, with salaries of
$1200, $900 and $800 per annum respectively. Such sums
as are necessary for defraying the cost of equipping and
maintaining the office shall be furnished by the treasury
of the state. Each office must have in front a conspicuous
sign bearing the words " Illinois free employment office."
The superintendent of each of the offices must receive and
record in books kept for that purpose the name, address and
character of employment or help desired of each person
applying for employment or help. Separate rooms shall
be provided for the men and women registering for situa-
tions or making applications for help.
It is readily understood that the vital point in the or-
ganization of an employment bureau is the devising of
means for obtaining knowledge of persons and firms w^io
are in need of help. To this end the law requires that it
shall be the duty of the superintendents to put themselves
in communication with the principal manufacturers, mer-
chants or other employers of labor and seek to secure their
active cooperation. Each superintendent can also expend
not more than $400 yearly in advertising in the columns of
the daily newspapers or otherwise. It is also the duty of
all factory and coal mine inspectors to do all in their power
to assist in securing situations for applicants for work. They
must imn">cdiatcly notify die superintendent of the ciujiIdv-
mcnt office of any opportunities for employment that come
to their notice, describe the character of work and causes
of scarcity of workmen, and seek to secure for tin- i-mploy-
nicnt offices the cooperation of employers in factories and
mines in every way possible. The services of these offices
203] Employment Bureaus. 35
shall be absolutely free. No fee or compensation of any
kind shall be charged either directly or indirectly.
The duties of a state employment bureau in case of vacan-
cies caused by strikes is often a difficult one for determina-
tion. To obviate any friction that might arise in such
cases, the law provides that in no cases shall help be fur-
nished employers whose employees are on strike or locked
out; nor the list of applicants for work be shown to such
employers.
In order that the work of the different offices may be
unified and centralized each superintendent is required to
report on the Tuesday of each week to the state bureau of
labor the number of applicants for employment or for help,
the number of unfilled applications remaining on the books,
the number of situations desired and the number of persons
wanted at each specified trade or occupation, and the num-
ber and character of the positions secured during the week.
On the receipt of these lists and not later than Saturday
of each week the bureau of labor must cause to be printed
the information thus received from all the offices, and mail
to each superintendent two copies, one to be kept on file
and one to be conspicuously posted in each employment
office; copies must also be mailed to each state inspector of
factories and inspector of mines.
In addition to these weekly reports each superintendent
must make an annual report to the state bureau of labor
statistics setting forth the work performed by his office
and the expense incurred by him, and these reports shall
be published annually by the bureau. Each superintendent
is also required to perform such other duties in the collec-
tion of statistics of labor as the labor bureau may require.
There remains another feature of this law that is of
special interest to students of social conditions. Careful
provision is made for the collection of sociological data
concerning applicants for work, in order that statistical
material may be obtained for studying the causes and ex-
tent of unemployment. The law thus requires that a special
26 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [304
register must be kept for applicants for employment, show-
ing the age, sex, nativity, conjugal condition and occupa-
tion of each applicant, the cause and duration of his or her
unemployment and the number of dependent children, to-
gether with such other facts as may be required by the
bureau of labor statistics for its use. As this information
is sometimes of a character that individuals are unwilling
to have generally known, the law wisely provides that this
register shall not be open to general public inspection, and
the material when published must not reveal the identity
of any person figuring in the register. Furthermore, the
applicants for work can decline to answer any of these ques-
tions if they desire to do so.
The employment offices established by the other states
can be more briefly considered. In general, the system
created is a very simple and inexpensive one, and is much
the same in all the bureaus whether created by a specific
law or organized under the general law creating the labor
bureau. The commissioner of the Missouri bureau de-
scribes his method of conducting the affairs of the bureau
as follows. Its reproduction will serve to show the man-
ner of action in all the other bureaus.
The plan of operation is extremely simple and businesslike, and
entirely devoid of red tape. Applicants for employment are re-
quired to file *heir applications on a blank furnished by the depart-
ment; giving their name, address, age, sex, nativity, kind of
employment desired, wages required, when last employed, cause
of idleness, reference as to character, etc., etc. All such appli-
cations are registered for 30 days and then dropped from the list,
when employment is not secured. Applicants have the privilege
of renewing their applications every 30 days if they desire till
employment is secured. Persons desiring help are required to file
an application in the same manner on a blank furnished by the
department,- stating in exact terms the kind of laborer wanted,
wages, term of service, etc., which application is also registered for
the term of 30 days, or till help is secured.
Whenever applications are received, and registered, a number of
parties making application for the position designated are promptly
notified by postal card and given the address of the applicant for
service. In this way the unemployed and the employed are brought
together with little difTiculty, and at no more expense than the cost
205]
Employment Bureaus.
27
of a postage stamp. All possible care is taken to prevent the
registration of irresponsible parties.
Results achieved. — An account of the workings and
results achieved by these various bureaus constitutes a part
of the regular reports of the commissioners of the states
having these bureaus. The majority of these bureaus, how-
ever, have been so recently created that an opportunity is
not afiforded of judging results. The work done in Ohio
is by far the most important, both because it is there that
the system was first inaugurated, and has therefore been
in operation the longest, and because bureaus are organ-
ized in five different cities instead of in a single one as in
most of the other states. In order to show the workings
of these bureaus, the following table has been compiled
which shows for all five cities combined, the number of per-
sons making application for work each year and the num-
ber for whom positions were secured each year since the
establishment of the svstem:
MAI.ES.
FEMALES.
BOTH SEXES.
Year.
Applica-
tions
for work.
Positions
secured.
Applica-
tions
for work.
Positions
secured.
Applica-
tions
for work.
Positions
secured.
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
189.5 . .
14,539
21,4.57
1.5,522
14,169
14,.521
14,165
12,668
13,159
12,778
15,259
5,575
6,967
5,905
4,566
2,140
2,677
3,781
3,912
3,930
5,058
5,607
12,914
11,424
12,685
14,616
13,793
15,030
13,298
12,324
10,886
3,413
8,628
7,840
8,635
7,626
9,048
10,164
13,135
13,278
9,931
20,136
34,371
26,946
26,854
29,137
27,958
27;698
26,457
25,102
26,145
8,988
15,595
13,745
13,201
9,766
11,725
1896
1897
1898
1899
12,945
17,047
17,208
14,989
28 Stale Actk'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [20G
It will be noticed, as the most striking fact brought out
by this statement, that during recent years at least, positions
have been secured for from one-third to one-fourth of all
male applicants for work, while in the case of females the
number of positions secured about equals and, in the case
of i8vi8, exceeded the number of applicants. The report for
1 8^)9 states that during that year there were applications
from employers for 6216 male and 17,681 female workers.
In both cases, therefore, there was a larger number of appli-
cations for help than there were positions secured. The
report unfortunately does not state the kind of occupations
for which positions were obtained. There is reason to be-
lieve, however, that the positions filled called largely for
domestic and unskilled labor.
The California bureau of employment was established
July 15. 1895. During the only year of its operation, appli-
cations for employment were received from 18.920 persons,
of whom 14.251 were men and 4669 were women. Posi-
tions were secured for 5845, of whom 3314 were men and
2531 were women. The report of the commissioner of labor
for 1895 antl 1896 gives a great many details concerning
the character of tiie applicants, their ages, whether able to
read and write, their occupations, wages, etc. It is evi-
dently impracticable, however, for us to attempt to repro-
duce these figures here. It should be stated that in order
to enable the conmiissioner of labor to carry on this work
a number of the leading manufacturers raised $iooo which
they placed at his disposal for this purpose.
The Missouri bureau was not organized until October,
1897. The report of its operation tluring tiie year ending
October 1, 181)9, shows that it received iluring the year
applications for positions from 4849 persons, of whom 3933
were males and qi6 females. Applications for help on the
part of employers were made for 2119 males and 1072 fe-
males. The number of positions secured was 2318, of
which 1647 were for males and 671 for females. The returns
show the occupations of all persons applying for work
207]
Employment Bureaus.
29
and of those who secured positions. Among the males the
most important classes of positions, as regards the success
achieved in finding employment, were: salespeople and
solicitors, 280 positions secured, farm help 145, office help
140, ordinary laborers 120, miners loi, cooks 91, engineers
and firemen 76. Generally the bureau seems to have been
of assistance to most of the classes of labor skilled as well
as unskilled.
The Nebraska bureau was opened ]\Iay i, 1897. The
commissioner of labor expresses himself as highly pleased
with the results attained. During the period of twenty
months from May i, 1897, to December 31, 1898, 1040 ap-
plications for work were received, and 218 persons were
found positions. In spite of the optimistic expression of
the commissioner these figures would not seem to indicate
any considerable success achieved.
The New York bureau, in pursuance of the act of 1896,
was organized July 20 of that year. The following figures,
summarizing its operations during the past three years,
show that this bureau has become one of the most im-
portant in the United States:
Applicants
for employ men t
ApplicantB
for help
Number secured
BituatioDR
Male.
Female.
Total.
1B97...
3,996
3,319
7,315
1898...
3,487
3,613
5,100
1899...
2,135
5,154
5,389
1897...
418
1,634
2,053
1898...
303
3,344
2,646
1899. , .
99
3,944
3,043
1897...
378
1,137
1,505
1898. . .
334
1,786
3,030
1899...
98
3,303
3,401
in operations of the bureau is entirely in the placing of
females; indeed, the superintendent reports that it is im-
possible to meet the demand for female help. In connec-
30 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [208
tion with these figures, it should be borne in mind that the
bureau pursues the laudable policy of seeking to ascer-
tain the qualifications of applicants for positions before they
are recommended for employment. The superintendent
thus, in his report for the quarter ending June 30, 1899,
says : " Every effort has been made to ascertain the quali-
fications of applicants for the work sought. Letters ask-
ing for information from former employers as to the
character and ability of the applicants have been very much
to the credit of the people who seek to place their labor
with us. As to the people for whom we have found em-
ployment, few complaints have been made, indeed, as to
their ability and qualifications, and in but two cases was the
complaint made by the employee that the wages were not
paid as per agreement, and a letter from this office to the
employers has been successful in righting any such wrongs."
The Maryland bureau was organized in 1896. Until
September, 1900, its operations were conducted entirely by
mail; and its work was of little importance. Since then,
personal interviews are held with applicants, and the scope
of the work has been much broadened. It is still, however,
the least important of the seven bureaus. No report con-
cerning its operations has been obtainable.
The two prominent features brought out by the preceding
study are: i) that private employment agencies do little
for the solution of the problem of unemployment, but on
the other hand are often so dishonestly conducted as to
make them undesirable institutions; and 2) that the system
of employment bureaus organized under the auspices of
the state bureaus of labor may now be said to be definitely
established in the United States. It is with these institu-
tions that we are chiefly interested.
An examination of the work of the various bureaus which
have been created, short as is their experience, convinces
us that they are institutions which can be of great service
to the workingman. To do this, however, it is necessary
that they should be conducted with the greatest care and
209] Employment Bureaus. 31
tact. If their affairs are merely managed in a perfunctory
or routine way, but little success can be anticipated. The
permanent prosperity and development of the bureaus de-
pend to a high degree on the zeal and ability of the persons
in charge.
The first and most important consideration to be observed
is that the work of these bureaus should not be confounded
in any way with that of charity bureaus. The function of
an employment bureau is not to help the incapable class
which ordinarily seeks assistance from public charity, but
to aid the honest workingman who is willing and able to
work but can not find employment.
A second point is that though the bureau is conducted in
the interest of the workingmen, chief attention must be di-
rected to giving satisfaction to the employers to whom labor
is furnished. It is evident that the success of an employ-
ment bureau is entirely dependent upon gaining the con-
fidence of the employers of labor. To do this it is neces-
sary that the bureau should use extreme caution and dis-
crimination in recommending any applicant for employ-
ment, unless it has every reason to believe that the person
is fitted by his personal character and skill to fill the posi-
tion to the satisfaction of the employer. It should not be
the aim of the bureau to find employment for every appli-
cant. It is evident that a great many of these belong to the
class of incapables, and to recommend them for employment
would injure the reputation of the bureau. The principle
should be firmly established that a selection of the most fit
will always be made.
Another important point as regards the policy of the
bureau is mentioned in the Ohio labor report for 1896. The
commissioner there says:
The employment offices should not be allowed to furnish any
help in case of a labor dispute or strike of any kind; and I strongly
recommend a ruling of the department on this subject. As it
now stands there is no guide in this matter except the superinten-
dent's own feelings and sense of right. Certainly the state of
Ohio ought not to allow itself to be made a party in any sense in
33 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [210
such troubles. The state establishes these offices on the request
and through the instrumentality of the labor unions, for the benefit
mainly of the laboring people, and the ollfices should not be allowed
to assist in an injury to them.
It will be remembered that Illinois in her law makes pro-
vision for such cases as this along the lines here laid down.
It is only proper to state that in the United States no trouble
has ever arisen in regard to this question. The danger
nevertheless is one that is always present and should be
guarded against as suggested.
The final point that it is desired to cotnment on is the
necessity for joint action by the different bureaus in the
same state such as is provided for in the Illinois law, and
v^'hen there is but one bureau, the advisability of having
branch offices in the different industrial centers. The lack
of employment is often geographic. Labor of a certain kind
may be superabundant in one section and lacking in
another. An employment bureau to realize its full useful-
ness, therefore, should acquaint itself with labor conditions
throughout the state, and thus be able to equalize the de-
mand and offer of labor in the different sections of the
country.
CHAPTER III.
THE INSPECTION OF FACTORIES AND
WORKSHOPS.
Factory inspection in the United States has followed and
grown in consequence of the enactment of laws regulating
the condition of labor in factories and workshops. A little
consideration will show that these two classes of legislation
are entirely different in character. The province of the first
is to specify conditions; of the second, to see that they are
enforced. The name inspection is in some respects mis-
leading. The real duty of factory inspectors is to enforce
laws. Their powers of inspection are but incidental to this
duty, and are exercised in order that the latter may be more
efhciently performed. Yet, in the majority of the states
having factory laws, the inspection of factories was first pro-
vided for, and the power of issuing orders directing factory
operators to comply with the provisions of the laws, or at
least the granting to the inspectors of adequate powers for
enforcing them through judicial action, was only granted
later, as the necessity for such powers became evident. In
a word, the inspector of factories is primarily a police officer
with special duties.
The history of the development of the official inspection
of factories and workshops in the United States is like that
of most social legislation. One state has led the way by
the enactment of tentative measures, which it has afterwards
developed as dictated by experience. Other states have
profited by the example and have taken similar steps. The
moral influence of the action of states on each other in the
United States is great. A movement at first grows slowly,
but as state after state adopts similar measures the pres-
1=5
3-1 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. ["312
sure on others to do likewise becomes stronger, and the
movement tends to advance at a constantly increasing rate.
In the field of the inspection of factories we are now in the
midst of such a movement. Factory inspection in the
United States is of comparatively recent development.
Though Massachusetts, the first state to take steps in this
direction, enacted its initial law for the inspection of factories
in 1877, it was not till six years later, or in 1883, that its
example was followed by another state — New Jersey. Wis-
consin in the same year provided for inspection through its
bureau of labor. Ohio followed in the succeeding year^
1884. The movement, once fairly started, however, has
spread with increasing rapidity. In 1886 New York pro-
vided for factory inspection. In 1887 Connecticut, Alinne-
sota and Maine did likewise. They were followed by Penn-
sylvania, California and West Virginia in 1889, Missouri
and Tennessee in 1891, Illinois and Michigan in 1893,
Rhode Island in 1894, Delaware, Indiana, Nebraska and
Washington in 1897 and Kansas in 1899. There are, there-
fore, at the present time, 21 states that have made some
pr(Tvision for factory inspection.
Twenty-one states out of 45 is, of course, a small propor-
tion. As has been stated, however, it is not a completed
movement that is being studied. We are rather in the posi-
tion of one who in the midst of action stops to look back
and see what has been accomplished in order better to de-
termine his course for the future. In considering the i:)ro-
gress that has l>een made, moreover, the comparison should
be not with the total numl)er of states, but rather with those
in which the manufacturing industry is largely developed.
It will thus be seen that of the New England and Middle
states, all of which are manufacturing states, the smaller
states alone — New Hampshire, Vermont and Maryland —
have no inspection. In the middle western states, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas,
Nebraska and Wisconsin have inspection officers. Tlu' far
western and the southern states, if we except the sliglit
213] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 35
measure of inspection in Tennessee, West Virginia, Cali-
fornia and Washington, are absolutely unrepresented. In
these states, however, the manufacturing interests are but
little developed.
Finally, it is important to recognize that the growth of
factory inspection lies not only in the creation of new de-
partments in different states, but in the enlargement of the
powers and the broadening of the scope of the work of in-
spection services after they have once been initiated. The
principal development of factory inspection is found in the
development of each particular bureau.
An appreciation of this development, therefore, can only
be had by studying the development of factory inspection
in each state in which action has been taken, after which
the general features of the movement can be summarized.
Massachusetts. — The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
holds the preeminent place among the states as regards
social legislation. Just as it has been the first to create a
bureau of labor statistics, thus setting an example that has
been followed by two-thirds of the other states and several
foreign governments, the first to establish a state board of
arbitration and conciliation, the first to regulate the employ-
ment of women and children, etc., so it was the first to pro-
vide for the inspection of factories. It would be difficult to
overestimate the influence that Massachusetts' labor legisla-
tion has exerted on the other states. The imprint of its
legislation can be found — frequently verbatim — in the labor
legislation of all the other states.
Massachusetts inaugurated its work of factory inspection
by the passage. May ii, 1877, of the law entitled "An act
relating to the inspection of factories and public buildings."
This act is remarkable from the fact that it immediately
made broad and efficient provisions for the regulation of
labor in factories. It provided for the guarding of belting,
shafting, gearing, etc.; the prohibition of the cleaning of
machinery when in motion; the ventilation of factories; the
protection of elevators, hoistways, etc.; the furnishing of
3G State .-Ictiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [21-t
sufficient means of egress in case of fire, etc. Finally, it
directed the governor to appoint one or more members of
the state detective force to act as inspectors of factories, with
the duties of enforcing not only this law, but other legisla-
tion relating to the employment of children and the regula-
tion of the hours of labor in manufacturing establishments.
In 1879 this act was slightly amended by an act that abol-
ished the state detective force and created in its stead a dis-
trict police force, of which two or more members should be
designated as inspectors of factories. In accordance with
this act the governor appointed three inspectors, and the
first report of their work was made in the year 1879. This
year, therefore, really marks the beginning of factory in-
spection in the state.
It will not be practicable to mention all of the acts sub-
sequently passed by which new regulations concerning the
conditions of labor were enacted and the duties of the in-
spectors correspondingly increased. Some of the principal
stages of the growth of inspection, can, however, be briefly
mentioned.
In 1880 the duties of inspection were extended to mer-
cantile as well as to manufacturing establishments, and the
number of inspectors was increased to four.
In 1882 the number of members of the police force de-
tailed for inspection work was increased to five.
In 1885 the district police force was increased to 20, of
whom eight were reported in 1886 as detailed for inspection
work.
In 1886 an important increase in the duties of the inspec-
tors was made by the act of June i, entitled " An act rela-
tive to reports of accidents in factories and manufacturing
establishments." For the first time, therefore, provision
was made for the reporting of accidents to laborers.
The year 1887 was prolific in labor legislation. One
act was passed to secure proper sanitary provisions in fac-
tories and workshops; another to secure their proper ven-
tilation: a third to secure proper meal hours; and another
315] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 37
to amend the law relating to the employment of women and
children. The number of inspectors was increased from
eight to ten.
By an act of March 8, i888, a much needed reform was
accomplished by dividing the district police force into two
separate departments of detective work and inspection.
According to this act the inspection department was made
to consist of ten members, not including a chief who was
also the chief of the detective department. By a supple-
mental act of the same year the force of inspectors was in-
creased to 20.
March lo, 1890, the law relating to the reporting of acci-
dents was amended so as to make it relate to all proprietors
of mercantile and manufacturing establishments, instead of
to corporations only, as had been the case under the old
law.
In 1891 the force of inspectors was increased to 26, and it
was provided that two must be women. An important act
of this year was that of May 28, entitled " An act to prevent
the manufacture and sale of clothing made in unhealthy
places," by which it was attempted to bring under regula-
tion the growing evil of the sweating system. This act was
afterwards amended in 1892 and again in 1893.
In 1893 provision was made for the appointment of an
additional district police officer, with the duty of inspecting
all uninsured steam boilers.
In 1894 the important service was performed of making
a codification of all laws relating to labor in factories, the
enforcement of which fell within the duties of the inspection
department of the district police force.
In 1895 a great increase was made in the inspection
duties of the state by the enactment of a law providing for
the appointment of four inspectors to examine uninsured
steam boilers and to act as a board to determine the com-
petency of engineers and firemen intrusted with the care of
such boilers.
The inspection force at the present time consists of one
38 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [21G
chief. 26 inspectors of factories (two of whom arc women)
and four inspectors of boilers.
New Jersey. — New Jersey was the first state to follow
the example of Massachusetts in making provision for the
inspection of factories. Its service was inaugurated by the
act of March 5, 1883, entitled " An act to limit the age and
employment hours of labor of children, minors and women,
and to appoint an inspector for the enforcement of the
same." By this act the governor was directed to appoint
an inspector of factories at a salary of $1200 a year, whose
duties were to inspect all factories, workshops, etc., and to
prosecute all violations of law before the proper judicial
authorities. He was allowed expenses not to exceed $500
a year.
In 1884, April 17, a supplemental act w^as passed provid-
ing for the appointment by the inspector of two deputy
inspectors, at a salary of $1000 a year each. The salary of
the chief inspector was increased to $1800, and his allowance
for contingent expenses to $1000. At the same time the
original act was modified so as to enable infractions of the
law to be more effectively prosecuted. The result of this
act was to more than double the efficiency of factory in-
spection in the state.
April 7. 1885, there was passed what was known as a
general factory act. which specified in considerable detail
the precautions which must be taken in factories against
accidents, and unsanitary conditions. The enforcement of
this law was intrusted to the factor}^ inspectors.
March 22, 1886, this act was slightly amended.
May 6. 1887, a new general factory act was passed in
order to amend and elaborate the act of 1885.
In 1889 the number of deputy inspectors was increased
from two to six, and the general factory act was amended,
especially as regards the provision of fire escapes.
The most important subsequent acts relating to inspec-
tion were those of 1803 regulating the sweating system, the
enforcement of which was intrusted to the factory inspectors,
217] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 39
and of 1894 imposing on the factory inspectors the duty of
mine inspection.
At the present time the inspection force of the state con-
sists of one chief and six deputy inspectors.
Ohio. — Ohio enacted its first law in regard to the in-
spection of factories April 4, 1884. This act called for the
appointment of an " inspector of the sanitary conditions,
comfort, and safety of shops and factories," at a salary of
$1500, and traveling expenses not to exceed $600. The
duties of this inspector were very limited indeed. Though
he had the power of issuing orders, and non-compliance
therewith was deemed a misdemeanor, no provisions were
made whereby these infractions could be prosecuted.
In 1885 provision was made by the law for the appoint-
ment of three district inspectors.
In 1888 the reporting of all accidents to laborers was
made obligatory upon manufacturers.
In 1892 a notable increase was made in the inspection
force, by a law providing for the appointment of eight addi-
tional district inspectors.
The general factory laws were amended by the acts of
March 17. 1892, and April 25, 1893, the purposes of which
were to regulate in greater detail the conditions of labor,
insure that proper precautions were taken against accidents,
etc.
The year 1898, however, was especially prolific in legisla-
tion relating to factory labor. No less than eight laws of
this character were passed. These laws provided for the
regulation of bakeries, for which purpose two additional
district inspectors were to be appointed, made obligatory
the furnishing of seats and dressing rooms for female em-
ployees, ordered that blowers and exhaust fans should be
provided to remove dust and other injurious substances,
and made other regulations concerning the employment of
children, the reporting of accidents, etc.
At the present time Ohio has one chief and 13 district
inspectors of factories.
40 State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [218
Xew York. — New York offers an excellent example of
the development of factory inspection in a state, after the
initial step had once been taken. The first act relating to
factory inspection was passed May i8, 1886, and was en-
titled " An act to regulate the employment of women and
children in manufacturing establishments, and to provide
for the appointment of inspectors to enforce the same." By
this act provision was made for the apointment of a factory
inspector at a salary of $2000 and an assistant inspector at
$1500 with an allotment of $2500 for contingent expenses.
The following year the legislature greatly extended the
inspection service. By an act of May 25, 1887, it authorized
the appointment of eight deputy inspectors at a salary of
$1000 each, and the powers and duties of the inspectors
were so increased as to give them a supervision over all of
the most important features of factory life. June 15, 1889,
the law was again slightly amended.
By an act of May 21, 1890, however, the law was materi-
ally changed and made more comprehensive. The most
important of the new provisions were those providing for
the appointment of eight women as additional factory in-
spectors, with the same salary as existing deputies, and in-
creasing the allowance for contingent expenses to $3500,
exclusive of traveling expenses.
May 18, 1892, an important extension of the province of
factory inspection was made by the act of that date, which
attempted to bring under regulation the sweating system.
Advantage was also taken of the opportunity to collect in a
single act most if not all of the laws relating to factories and
their inspection. In a way there was created a factory
code. The force of inspectors was maintained at the same
number, viz., one inspector, one assistant inspector and 16
dcjjuties. Salaries, however, were considerably increased,
that of the chief inspector being raised to $3000, that of the
assistant to $2500, and that of the deputies to $1200 each.
Provision was also made for a suboffice in New ^'ork city.
In i8(;3 the law was still fiu-tlier amended by the act of
219] The Inspection of Faetories and Workshops. 41
March 22, and made more stringent in its provisions. From
the standpoint of inspection the greatest change was that
whereby provision was made for eight additional deputy
inspectors, of whom two should be women.
The final step in the evolution of a regular labor code was
taken in 1897 when by the law of May 13 all the labor laws,
whether relating to factory inspection, arbitration, employ-
ment bureaus or other matters, were consolidated in a single
law. More or less important changes were at the same time
made in a number of laws. The most important with which
we are here concerned provided that the number of deputy
inspectors should be increased to 36, of whom ten might be
w^omen. Six of them should be especially detailed to in-
spect bakeries and enforce provisions regarding them, and
one to act as a mine inspector.
Connecticut. — The state of Connecticut created its ser-
vice for the inspection of factories in 1887. The act pro-
vided for the appointment of an inspector to visit factories
and see that proper precautions were taken against acci-
dents, and proper sanitary regulations observed. This law
has remained practically unchanged till the present time, and
provides for a system of factory inspection which is far from
efficient. Though Connecticut has on its statute books
laws relating to the employment of women and children, the
provision of proper fire escapes, etc., their enforcement does
not seem to be intrusted to the factory inspector. There is
also no provision calling for the reporting of accidents in
factories. The orders of the inspector consist almost en-
tirely of directions concerning the guarding of machinery
or the observance of proper sanitary measures.
The only extension of this law that has been made in the
succeeding decade was by the law of May 25, 1897, which
provided for the rigid inspection of all bakeries by the fac-
tory inspector. It is made the duty of this officer to see
that all bakeries are " properly drained, plumbed, ventilated
and kept in a clean and sanitary co^^dition and constructed
with proper regard to the health of the operatives and the
42 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [220
production of wholesome food " and also to enforce certain
other regulations concerning separate sleeping rooms for
operatives, dressing rooms, etc.
There is at the present time but one inspector, though an
appropriation is made for the appointment of special agents
as assistant inspectors. Though the law providing for fac-
tory inspection was passed in 1887, the first report seems to
have been made for the year 1889.
Pennsylvania. — Though Pennsylvania is one of the
most important manufacturing states of the Union, the cre-
ation of a service of factory inspection is of comparatively
recent date. The first step in this direction was taken by the
act of May 20, 1889, entitled "An act to regulate the em-
ployment and provide for the safety of women and children
in mercantile and manufacturing establishments, and to
provide for the appointment of inspectors to enforce the
same and other acts providing for the safety or regulating
the employment of said persons."
Though its action was considerably delayed, Pennsyl-
vania by this act immediately created an efficient inspection
service. The act provided for the appointment of an in-
spector of factories at a salary of $1500 a year, and six
deputy inspectors, three of whom should be women, at a
salary of $1000 a year. The inspectors were given broad
powers to order necessary changes and to enforce them
through prosecutions before the proper judicial officers.
Although the bureau of industrial statistics exercised no
sui)ervision over the factory inspector, the latter was re-
quired to report to the chief of that bureau, and his early
reports, therefore, are included in the reports of that office.
On June 3, 1893. a new act was passed, bearing the same
title as the act of 1889 and replacing the latter, w-hich prac-
tically doubled the efficiency of the inspection service. The
number of deputy inspectors was increased from five to 12,
five of whom should be women, and their salaries were raised
to $1200. The salary of the chief inspector was at the same
time raised from $i5Cxd to $3000. The inspector was also
321] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 43
required to report directly to the governor. His reports,
commencing with that for 1893, have therefore appeared as
separate volumes.
In 1895 the duties of the inspectors of factories were still
further increased by the act of April 11, wdiich was directed
to the regulation of the sweating system in the clothing and
tobacco industries. In order to provide for the increased
work that would thus have to be done, the number of deputy
inspectors was increased from 12 to 20.
April 29, 1897, a law was passed amending in important
respects the existing law regarding the employment of
women and children. The provisions of the existing law
were extended so as to embrace mercantile establishments,
laundries, printing offices, etc.; other sections required the
provision of seats for female employees, and the use of me-
chanical belt and gear shifters, and regulated the lighting
and heating of factories and the inspection of boilers.
By two other acts of the same year, passed May 5 and
May 27, respectively, the laws regarding the sweating sys-
tem and the inspection of bakeries were made more rigid
and effective.
Finally, by the law first mentioned, the chief inspector was
provided with a chief clerk, an assistant clerk and a mes-
senger. The inspection department at the present time, in
addition to this ofifice force, consists of 21 persons, a chief
and 20 deputy inspectors.
Illinois. — The state of Illinois created an inspection ser-
vice by the act of June 17, 1893. The immediate cause lead-
ing to its establishment was the desire to abolish the manu-
facture of clothing in tenements, or the so-called sweating
system. The act, however, not only contained provisions to
this effect, but regulated the employment of women and chil-
dren generally, and authorized the appointment of an in-
spector at a salary of $1500 a year, an assistant inspector
at $1000, and ten deputies, five of whom must be women,
at $750 each. Power was given to them to enforce their
orders through judicial prosecution.
44 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [223
A comprehensive inspection service, however, was by no
means created, as the duties of the inspectors were strictly
Hmited to enforcing the provisions of the act by which they
were authorized, and therefore embraced little but the regu-
lation of the sweating system and the employment of women
and children. In 1897 a number of laws were enacted ma-
terially extending the system. The law of May 27 made
obligatory the provision of fire escapes as required by the
factory inspectors. The law of June 9 extended the law
regulating the employment of children so as to include
every gainful occupation, and it was broadly stated that no
child under 14 years of age should be employed for wages in
mercantile establishments, laundries, offices, or any such
place; and the law of June 11 made detailed provisions con-
cerning the use of blowers and fans to remove dirt and other
substances injurious to the health of employees.
Rhode Island. — The state of Rhode Island provided for
the inspection of factories by the act of April 26, 1894. This
act created at once a very efficient system of factory inspec-
tion. It not only provided for the appointment of two in-
spectors, one of whom must be a woman; but regulated the
employment of children ; directed that all elevators or hoist-
way entrances should be guarded; that no person under 16
years of age should clean machinery while in motion; that
machinery should be guarded; that separate toilet facilities
should be provided for female and male employees; that
accidents should be promptly reported; and, generally, that
the inspector should issue all needful orders to secure the
proper heating, lighting, ventilation or sanitary arrange-
ments of factories and workshops.
Power was given to the inspectors, moreover, to enforce
their orders by prosecuting delinquents before the proper
courts or magistrates.
Maixe. — An inspection service was first organized in
Maine by the act of March 17, 1887, entitled "An act to
regulate the hours of labor and the employment of women
and children in manufacturing and meciianical establish-
223] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 45
ments." This act provided for the appointment of a deputy
commissioner of labor at a salary of $1000 per annum, and
specified his duties to be " to inquire into any violations of
this act, and also to assist in the collection of statistics and
other information which may be required for the use of the
bureau of industrial and labor statistics." The appointment
of assistant deputies, if needed, at a salary of $2 a day was
also authorized.
It will be seen that no really effective system of inspection
was provided by this act. The powers of the deputy were
strictly limited to those of inspection and report. The
means of enforcing his orders, without which inspection has
little reason, were absolutely wanting. In 1893 the title of
" deputy commissioner of labor " was changed to that , of
" inspector of factories, workshops, mines and quarries," a
change chiefly significant as showing that the true nature
of the office was becoming better understood.
By an act of the legislature, March 29, of the same year,
it was made the duty of the inspector to examine as to the
extent to which the law in regard to doors swinging out-
ward was complied with, and as to the sanitary condition
of factories, workshops, mines and quarries, and to report
annually to the governor. It was under the provisions of
this law that the first report of the factory inspector was
issued in 1893. These reports are incorporated in the re-
ports of the bureau of industrial and labor statistics. Though
the law states that it is the duty of the inspector to enforce
certain laws, there is no way specified by which this shall be
done, and the reports of the inspector do not indicate that
he ever ordered any changes to be made, or attempted any
prosecutions in order to enforce labor laws.
Indiana. — No provision for the inspection of factories
in Indiana was made till the passage of the law of March 2,
1897. This law was a very comprehensive enactment. It
provided for the more efBcient regulation of the employment
of women and children, contained provisions for the regu-
lation of the sweating system, and finally created the offices
4G State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [224
of inspector and assistant inspector of factories. The duties
of these officers, which were to enforce the labor laws of the
state, comprehended the enforcement of laws relating to the
employment of women and children, the guarding of ma-
chinery, the lime washing of factories, the provision of fire
escapes, the reporting of accidents, and numerous other
obligations imposed on factory owners.
Though one of the latest states to take action, Indiana
has by this law provided one of the most effective factory
codes of any of the states.
Michigan. — The first bill to provide for factory inspec-
tion in Michigan was introduced in the state legislature in
1891 but failed to pass. In 1893 another bill was intro-
duced, passed and went into effect August 25, 1893. The
bill as introduced, contemplated a separate bureau. As
passed, it provided that factory inspection should be a part
of the work of the bureau of labor and industrial statistics.
The title of this act was " An act to regulate the employment
of women and children in manufacturing establishments in
the state, to provide for the inspection and regulation of
such manufacturing establishments, and to provide for the
enforcement of such regulation and inspection."
This act provided for the annual inspection of manufac-
turing establishments by the commissioner or deputy com-
missioner of labor, or by persons acting under their au-
thority, for the payment of which $4000 should be annually
appropriated. In addition to creating an inspection ser-
vice it also embraces a great many provisions of a general
factory act. It thus makes it the duty of the inspectors to
see that proper safeguards are taken against accidents; that
factories are provided with fire escaj^es; that suitable toilet
facilities are provided for male and female employees in
difTcrent rooms; that exhaust fans arc provided where neces-
sary; and most important of all, to enforce their orders by
the prosecution of delinquents in the courts of competent
jurisdiction.
Michigan thus provided for an efficient system of factory
225] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. -i?
inspection as far as the powers and duties of the inspectors
were concerned. The appropriation of only $4000 a year
for this work was, however, far from sufficient to carry out
the work, and the mistake was made of making inspection
a branch of the bureau of labor instead of an independent
service.
For the first year four inspectors were appointed, and for
the second year five inspectors. In 1895 the act was
amended by raising the appropriation for inspection from
$4000 to $8000 a year. No limit was placed on the num-
ber of deputies that might be appointed save by the amount
of the appropriation.
Further amendments were made in 1897 by the laws of
April 24, May 17 and June 2. By these acts the annual
appropriation for factory inspection was increased to $12,-
000 and it was ordered that all manufacturing establish-
ments should be inspected at least once in each year; the
law relating to child labor was amended; the minimum age
at which children could be employed being placed at 14
years ; and the provision of safety appliances for all elevators
W'as made obligatory.
Missouri. — By act of May 19, 1879, Missouri created a
" bureau of labor statistics and inspection of factories, mines,
and workshops." In spite of its title, however, this bureau
by no means constituted a bureau of inspection. An ex-
amination of the reports of the bureau shows that its efforts
have been almost wholly directed to securing information,
and not to inspection with the view of enforcing particular
laws.
On April 20, 1891, an act was passed which made a con-
siderable number of technical provisions concerning the
provision of safeguards against machinery; the guarding of
elevator shafts; the reporting of accidents; the provision of
fire escapes, etc. This act, however, was made to apply
only to cities and towns with a population of 5000 or over,
on which it was made obligatory to appoint an inspector
with deputies to inspect all factories employing ten or more
48 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [22G
persons and to see that the provisions of the act were com-
pHed with. These inspectors were directed to report semi-
annually to the commissioner of labor.
It would be difficult to conceive of a j^ystem less likely
to be productive of valuable results than this localization of
the work of inspection and distribution of authority. In
fact, the commissioner of labor has reported during the suc-
ceeding years that the law has been ignored by a great many
cities of the state. As yet, therefore, Missouri can not be
said to possess any very efifective system of factory inspec-
tion.
Wisconsin. — In Wisconsin the law of April 12, 1883,
providing for the creation of a labor bureau, made it a part
of the duties of the commissioner of labor to inspect all
factories and to see that the laws regarding fire escapes, the
protection of employees against accidents, the employment
of women and children, etc., were complied with, and to en-
force the same by prosecutions before the courts. It was
manifestly beyond the power of the commissioner to do
more than slightly fulfil these duties.
April 4, 1885, the labor bureau was reorganized, and
among other changes provision was made for the appoint-
ment of a special inspector of factories as one of the officers
of the bureau. At the same time the laws relating to the
conduct of labor in factories were considerably elaborated
and made more stringent. This law thus provided for a
fairly complete system of factory inspection, though but a
single inspector was provided for, and he was made an
officer of the labor bureau instead of an independent official.
The first report of inspection was made for the years
1885 and 1886, and is included in the biennial report of the
commissioner of labor. Subsequent reports have appeared
in the same way.
In 1887 the inspection laws were enlarged; authority was
granted to appoint two inspectors instead of one, and the
great defect of prior legislation was remedied by attaching
penalties for the violation of the factory acts and increasing
227] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 49
the powers of the inspectors to enforce their orders and
prosecute offenders.
Since this date other acts sHghtly amending the factory-
acts have been passed, but the inspection service remains as
it was then.
Minnesota. — The act of 1887 creating a bureau of labor
statistics in Minnesota specifies as a part of the duties of the
commissioner that he shall cause to be inspected the fac-
tories and workshops of the state, " to see that all laws
regulating the employment of children and women and all
laws established for the protection of the health and lives
of operatives in workshops, factories, and all other places
where labor is employed are enforced." In case his orders
are not complied with, he is directed to make formal com-
plaint to the county attorney, which officer must then pro-
ceed to the prosecution of the offender.
The first material change in this law was made in 1893.
This act, while leaving inspection a part of the duties of the
labor bureau provided for the appointment of a special in-
spector of factories and two deputy inspectors. The duties
of these officers broadly stated are " to cause to be enforced
all laws regulating the employment of children, minors, and
women ; all laws established for the protection of the health,
lives, and limbs of operatives in workshops and factories, on
railroads and in other places, and all laws enacted for the
protection of the working classes."
The reports of these inspectors are contained in the bien-
nial reports of the commissioner of labor, the first inspec-
tion report being that for the years 1893 and 1894.
Delaware. — The state of Delaware inaugurated a factory
inspection service by a law enacted May 10, 1897. This law
had special reference to the regulation of the employment of
women, and referred only to the incorporated towns and
cities of the county of New Castle, or the county in which
the only two important cities of the state, Wilmington and
Newark, are situated. This law requires that wherever ten
or more women are employed there must be provided a
16
50 State Actk'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [238
separate room in which the women can dress, wash and
hinch, separate water closets for the two sexes, and that
seats for females nnist be furnished. Finally, provision is
made for the appointment of a female inspector by the chief
justice of the state to enforce the provisions of the act. She
is required to report annually to the chief justice. Her
salary is but $300.
Xehraska. — The law of jMarcli 31, 1887, creating a
bureau of labor in Nebraska, provided that it should be a
part of the duty of the connnissioner of that bureau to visit
industrial establishments and see that the laws in respect to
child labor, hours of labor for women and children, fire
escapes, and similar enactments were enforced. As no pro-
vision for deputy inspectors was made, no effort to carry
out a system of the inspection of factories was ever at-
tempted.
Washington. — The legislation of the state of Wash-
ington is similar to that of Nebraska. By the law of ]\Iarch
3, 1897, provision was made for the appointment of a com-
missioner and an assistant connnissioner of labor to act as
" factory, mill and railroad inspector." These officers were
given the duties, among others, of enforcing the laws
relating to the employment of women and children and hav-
ing for their purpose the protection of the lives and health
of employees. It is doubtful if any effective system of fac-
tory inspection can be created under this law.
Tennessee. — Such a slight measure of factory inspection
has been provided for in Tennessee that the barest mention
will be sufificient. The act of March 21, 1891, creating the
bureau of labor and mining statistics, also makes it the duty
of the commissioner to inspect factories and workshops.
As the power of the commissioner is limited to investiga-
tion, and his time is so largely taken up witli his other
duties, practically nothing is accomplished in the way of real
factory inspection work.
California. — In California provision for a measure of
factory inspection was made by a law passed in 1889. This
229] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 51
law made it obligatory on factory owners to keep their
establishments in a clean and hygienic condition, to guard
against the formation of dust, to provide seats for females
where practicable, etc. Another law passed in the same
year regulated the employment of children. The enforce-
ment of both of these laws was made a part of the duties of
the commissioner of labor, and to that extent this officer
serves as a factory inspector, though there seems to be no
express provision of law requiring him to visit industrial
establishments.
West Virginia. — The act of 1889 creating a state bureau
of labor in West \^irginia provided that the commissioner
of labor should " once at least in each year visit and inspect
the principal factories and workshops of the state, and shall
on complaint or request of any three or more reputable
citizens, visit and inspect any place where labor is em-
ployed, and make true report of the result of his inspection."
He is then directed to report any infraction of the law^ that
he may discover to the state's attorney for prosecution. As
this law, however, contains absolutely no provisions regu-
lating labor, and there are no other laws of this character in
the state, it would seem that the commissioner has, prop-
erly speaking, no duties under this law, and the state con-
sequently no effective system of factory inspection.
Kansas. — In 1899 Kansas reorganized her bureau of
labor. The chief of this bureau is styled both commissioner
of labor and state inspector of factories, and, as these two
designations indicate, has the twofold duty of collecting
statistics of labor and inspecting factories. He is directed
to enforce all the labor laws of the state.
In the foregoing history of the organization of factory
inspection in the individual states, special attention has been
given to the. kind of administrative organization that has in
each case been selected. This is one of the most important
considerations involved in the question of factory inspec-
tion, for on it depends to a large extent the effectiveness of
the system that has been adopted. Eleven of these states
62 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [230
— Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ne-
braska, Washington, California, West Virginia, Kansas and
Tennessee — have connected the duty of inspection with the
bureau of labor statistics. The adoption of this policy is
in every way regrettable. An inspection service, to accom-
plish the best results, should be absolutely independent of
all other work.
The function of the factory inspector is to see that certain
laws relating to the conduct of labor in factories are en-
forced, and to do this he should possess a certain technical
knowledge, such as that relating to machinery, hygiene, ven-
tilation, construction of buildings, etc. The duties of the
commissioner of labor are to collect facts and present them
properly. The greatest objection to joining the two offices,
however, is not that it is difficult to find a man with the men-
tal equipment for them both, but that the two classes of
duties are largely antagonistic. The labor commissioner
has to depend on the good will of the employers for his in-
formation, while the inspector has frequently to oppose the
latter's wishes.
The advisability of an independent inspection service can
not be shown better than by reproducing the remarks of the
chief factory inspector of New York concerning the propo-
sition to combine the three services of the bureau of labor
statistics, the board of arbitration and office of factory in-
spection.
Such a plan, if carried out, would be to the detriment of the
work of factor}' inspection. The duties of a factory inspector are
of a police nature. He must see that certain provisions and re-
strictions of law are obeyed; that children of certain ages must
not be employed; that guards must be attached to dangerous
machines; that women and children shall not work during certain
hours; th'at unsafe buildings must be made secure, and a score
of other matters, concerning all of which he must exercise the
compulsory arbitrary powers of the state. In case of refusal to
comply with his orders, it devolves upon him to swear out war-
rants for the arrest of the delinquent persons and prosecute them
to the full extent of the law. These duties, which are only brielly
outlined, are not compatible with the work of gathering statistics
and arbitrating differences between employers and employed,
231] The Inspection of Faetories and Workshops. 53
especially as the work of factory inspection may oftentimes bring
him into contact, if not into conflict, with the very persons to whom
appeals must be made for reliable statistics or on whose sense of
fairness must rest the conciliatory policy of arbitrating wage or
other difficulties in labor controversies ... It will thus be seen
that the duties of the commissioners of statistics and arbitration and
those of the factory mspector -are in no way harmonious and are in
many respects antagonistic and dissimilar.
Experience has more than demonstrated the correctness
of this reasoning. In those states in which factory inspec-
tion has been joined to the bureau of labor relatively slight
results have been accomplished, and one might almost say
that a real system of factory inspection exists only in the lo
states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, New York,
Illinois, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan and
Rhode Island, which have independent inspection services.
We now turn to a consideration of the character of the
work that has been assigned to factory inspectors; in other
words, to their duties and powers. In the historical sketch
of the development of factor}- inspection no attempt was
made to state all of the duties that were placed on factory
inspectors in each state. Only such were specified as tended
to show the growth of the serv^ice in each state. In the fol-
lowing table the attempt has been made, after a careful ex-
amination of the laws relating to factory inspection, or laws
the enforcement of which is intrusted to state officials, to
present in a concise form the duties of inspectors in each
of the twenty states. The adoption of this method of pre-
sentation makes it possible to compare at a glance the ex-
tent of the services in the different states. This table, of
course, only indicates the extent of the duties of inspection,
but throws no light on the efficiency with which they are
performed. Thus a state that has enumerated but a few
duties may provide for an adequate force of inspectors and
really accomplish more valuable results than another state
with an elaborate inspection law, but inadequate provisions
for its enforcement.
54 State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [232
DUTIES OF FACTORY INSPECTORS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Duty of Inspectors
to enforie laws
conceruintf—
6
a
1
a
2
■5
1^
o
1
6
u
CS
o
,
c
a,
a
.2
1
1
c
c
O
i
o
c
3
i
ii
i
o
Z,
6
o
a
a
O
B
c
a
3
[5
1
.3
a
o
13
O
Employment of chiklren
Employiiioiit of women
-
"1
1
-
~
~
_
-
-
I
_
-
Luni'h hour— women and
children
iScnarate toilet facilities for
the two sexes
GuanlinjT machinery
Cleaning machinery in mo-
tion tiy children and women.
Mechanical belt and ^rearing
~
-
—
Communication with engi-
Guanlinjr vats containing-
molten metal or hot litjuids. .
Regulation of dangerous or
injurious occui)ations
Use of explosive or inllam-
Exhuust fans, Ijlowers, etc.,
for reino\al of dust, &c
GuardiiiK elevator and hoist-
-
Doors to swing outward, to be
-
Sanitary condition
-
Lichtinir
Lime washing or jialnt'g walls
Reporting accidents
Reguliifn of sweating system
Inspection of mercantile
Inspection yf steam boilers ...
Inspection of school houses,
theaters, etc
Approval of plans for factories
This table docs not pretend to show absokitcly all the
duties of factory inspectors. Frcfjucntly the laws are so
233] TJic Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 55
generally worded that it is largely left to the discretion of
the inspectors to determine whether the conditions under
which factory employees labor are sanitary and proper pre-
cautions are taken against danger. It does show, however,
the extent to which the states have specified certain regula-
tions that must be observed, and consequently the features
with which it is believed factory inspection should be con-
cerned. The states having provisions concerning the sub-
jects shown in the first column are indicated by a dash. It
is believed that this table gives a very approximate idea of
the scope of the duties of factory inspectors in the United
States.
An examination of this table shows in the clearest way
the character of factory inspection as practised in the United
States. It is at once evident how largely legislation in one
state affects legislation in the others. A state enacting new
laws frequently but copies the legislation of the other states.
As regards the duties of inspectors, it will be seen that
they may be divided into a number of quite distinct classes.
First, there is the enforcement of certain general labor laws
relating to the employment of women and children, the
provision of seats for females, and of separate toilet facilities
for the two sexes, the payment of wages in cash and at in-
tervals of certain frequency, and the allowance of an ade-
quate length of time to women and children at noon for
their lunch.
A second class of duties is that relating to the provision
of suitable means of egress in case of fire. This finds ex-
pression in the requirement that fire escapes shall be placed
on factories, and that doors shall be so hung as to open
outward and shall be kept unlocked during working hours.
A third and most important class is that relating to the
obligation of factory operators to take all needful precau-
tions to protect workingmen against accidents. This is
done by requiring that machinery and vats containing
molten metal or hot liquids must be properly guarded ; that
machinerv in motion must not be cleaned bv women or
56 State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [33^
minors; that mechanical belt and gear shifters be provided;
that a speaking tube or some other means of communication
be provided between any room where machinery is used
and the engineer's room; that elevators be provided with
safety appliances and that they and all hoistway openings
be properly railed ofT; that sides or railings be placed on all
stairways; that there be exhaust fans to prevent dust or
other deleterious products from being inhaled by the opera-
tives; that no use be made of explosive or highly inflamma-
ble compounds except under special precautions; and, finally,
that exceptional precautions, the determination of which
lies largely in the discretion of the inspectors, be taken in
the case of all dangerous or injurious occupations.
Fourth, there are the general provisions relating to the
sanitary condition, ventilation, lighting, heating and over-
crowding of factories. Under sanitation it is usual to specify
that water closets, privies and drains shall be tight and kept
in good condition. A few states, it will be seen, require
walls to be lime washed or painted once a year.
Fifth, there is the duty of inspectors to keep a record of
all accidents to employees of factories, and to report an-
nually concerning them. This information is obtained
through the obligation placed by law on all employers of
labor to report all accidents to the inspection department.
There are few who are interested in, or concerned with, the
inspection of factories who fail to recognize the utility of
obtaining as nearly complete data as possible concerning the
occurrence of accidents to laborers, their cause, character,
etc. Such information is desirable, first of all, in order to
determine which are the industries and the particular
manipulations or machines that are responsible for acci-
dents. It js thus possible to determine what steps should
be taken for lessening their frequency. Secondly, it is nec-
essary in order that the public and law-makers may be made
to realize the importance of requiring the provision of safety
appliances anrl of the rigid enforcement of precautionary
regulations.
235] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 5T
The collection of this information, if it is to be made,
naturally falls within the province of the factory inspectors.
It is much to be regretted, therefore, that these officers for
the most part either have not been given the power to ob-
tain this information or have not organized their inquiries
on a sufficiently broad basis. Though nine states, as will be
seen by the table, provide in their factory laws that accidents
shall be reported by manufacturers, in none of them is there
any pretense that anything like complete returns of acci-
dents are obtained. Even in the cases of the accidents that
are reported, the description of their causes, results and
character is far from sufficiently full. The laws directing
the reporting of accidents usually read that the employers
of labor shall report to the chief factory inspector all acci-
dents causing the death of an employee or his incapacity
to work for a certain duration of time. It is also to be
regretted that no uniformity exists in such data in the dif-
ferent states as regards the classification of accidents either
by causes, extent of injury, or party at fault. The very im-
portant classification of accidents into those causing death,
permanent total, permanent partial, and temporary disa-
bility is in no case made.
Any attempt to make a study of accidents to labor in
factories in the United States is, therefore, out of the ques-
tion. The only point for congratulation is that the neces-
sity for reporting accidents has been recognized by a num-
ber of states, and that thus a beginning has been made that
may receive a fuller development in the future.
Within recent years the office of inspector of factories has
become of increased importance through the development
of the so-called " sweating system," and the attempt to con-
trol or abolish it through legislative enactments. Wherever
laws have been enacted for this purpose their enforcement
through the factory inspectors of the state has constituted
an essential feature of the law. In these states, therefore,
the regulation of this system of work has become one of the
most important duties of the factory inspectors.
58 State Jctiz-itics in Rcl'itioii to Labor in the U. S. [236
The above classes constitute the regular and ordinary
duties of factory inspectors. There has been a tendency,
however, to impose on these officers certain additional duties
which can be and frequently are intrusted to other officers;
such, for instance, are the inspection of mines, the inspection
of steam boilers, the inspection of schoolhouses, theaters
and other public buildings.
l-"inally. in recent years, a number of states have passed
special regulations concerning the conduct of the bread-
making business. These provisions are that such work
shall not be carried on in cellars; that workrooms shall not
be used as sleeping rooms; that privies and water closets
shall not be maintained within a certain distance of the
bakeries, etc.
Of the states, Massachusetts not only possesses the most
advanced and detailed code of labor laws, but has made the
most efficient provision for their enforcement. No better
method can, therefore, be adopted for showing the char-
acter of factory inspection in the United States, where it is
best developed, than to reproduce the sumiuary of the duties
of the inspectors of this state, as recapitulated by the chief
factory inspector in his report for the year 1895. There is
all the more excuse for reproducing the duties of the in-
spectors of this state, since it is to its laws that all of the
states turn when contemplating similar legislation. On
page five of this report the chief inspector says:
There are now 26 officers exclusively employed in the inspec-
tion department. Some idea of the extent and nature of the duties
of the inspectors may be had by reference to the statutes defining
them; but not even the detailed reports of the several inspectors
made to this ofilice can give, to those not familiar with the matters
discussed, an adequate idea of the vast amount of labor performed
by this dtjiartmcnl. Its duties embrace the enforcement of the
laws relating to the hours of labor: the protection of operatives
from unguarded machinery; the employment of women and minors;
the schooling of children employed in factories and workshops; the
preservation of the health of females employed in mechanical manu-
facturing, and mercantile establishments; reports of accidents in
manufactories; safety appliances for elevators; provisions for escape
from hotels and other buildings in case of fire; proper ventilation
237] The Inspection of Factories and Workshops. 59
for factories and workshops, and uniform meal hours for children,
young persons, and women employed therein; the suppression of
nuisances from drains, and provisions for water closets, etc., for
the use of each sex employed in factories and workshops, and
various other sanitary regulations; the inspection of buildings
alleged to be unsafe or dangerous to life or limb, in case of fire or
otherwise; the submission to the inspector for approval of a copy
of plans and specifications of any building designed for certain
public purposes, as factory, workshop, mercantile structure, hotels,
apartment houses, lodging or tenement houses, above a certain
height; communication between the engineer's room and each room
where machinery is run by steam, in every manufacturing estab-
lishment; proper safeguards at hatchways, elevator openings, and
well holes in public buildings, factories, and mercantile establish-
ments; forbidding the use of portable seats in isles or passageways
in public halls, theaters, schoolhouses, churches, and public build-
ings during any service held therein; requiring fire-resisting cur-
tains, approved by inspectors, for use in all theaters, etc.; com-
petent watchmen, lights in hotels, gongs or other proper alarms,
and notices posted describing means of escape from fire in boarding
and lodging houses above a certain size, family and public hotels;
fire escapes on tenement or lodging houses three or more stories in
height; prohibiting during working hours the locking of any inside
or outside doors of any building where operatives are employed;
public buildings and schools in respect to cleanliness, suitable venti-
lation, and sanitary conveniences; the weekly payment of wages by
certain corporations to each of their employees; the inspection of
uninsured steam boilers; the examination as to the competency of
engineers and firemen in charge thereof; the enforcement of the act
relating to the manufacture and sale of clothing made in unhealthy
places; the enforcement of the act relating to the heating of street-
railway cars, and the enforcement of the act requiring specifications
to be furnished to persons employed in cotton, worsted, and woolen
factories.
It is not necessary at this date, even were this the place,
to attempt to show the necessity for, or all the advantages
resulting from factory inspection. Some of the most im-
portant of these latter, however, will bear mention. If it is
desirable to have factory and labor laws, it is certainly de-
sirable to have them enforced, and experience has demon-
strated that without inspection many labor laws will remain
dead letters. But apart from performing the duties for
which they are created, they indirectly perform many other
services. Many of the inspectors of factories report that
they have been of considerable use in spreading information
60 State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor i)i the U. S. [23S
concerning the best mechanical devices for guarding against
accidents. In the performance of their duties they become
acquainted witli the best contrivances, and are able to sug-
gest their employment in factories inefficiently equipped.
The directors of these latter are often only too thankful to
have them called to their attention. The reports of the in-
spectors, moreover, are becoming more and more valuable
as repositories of information concerning labor conditions
of a character that can not be obtained elsewhere. They
contain descriptions, accompanied by illustrations and plans
of the best devices for guarding machinery, of protecting
elevators and shaft openings, of carrying away dust and
odors by the use of exhaust fans, of the best forms of fire
escapes, of plans for ventilating and heating factories,
schoolhouses and other buildings, etc. The practical con-
tact of inspectors with labor conditions enables them to de-
termine with special accuracy the results of labor legislation,
and to recommend with authority its amendment or elabo-
ration.
In concluding this account of the inspection of factories
and workshops in the United States, some mention should
be made of the international association of factory in-
spectors. This organization though created as the result of
private efforts, yet may be said to have an official standing.
It was created and held its first annual convention in 1887.
The object of the association is to bring together annually
all officers of the government in the United States and
Canada whose duties relate to the inspection of factories,
workshops and public buildings. It is scarcely necessary
to comment on the utility of such a gathering. The ma-
jority of the inspectors are new and inexperienced in their
duties. They can thus avail themselves of the experience
of the older inspectors, especially can the very desirable
object of rendering more uniform the legislation and prac-
tices of the states be advanced. The report of the proceed-
ings anfl the papers read at the conventions are not only
separately published, but are frequently included as appen-
dices to the reports of individual states.
CHAPTER IV.
REGULATION OF THE SWEATING SYSTEM.
Though the regulation of the sweating system, so far as
it is attempted by any of the states, usually falls upon the
factory inspection service, and should, therefore, logically
be considered in connection with that subject, yet the prob-
lem is such a special one, and the legislation in respect to it
is so distinct from the body of general factory laws, that
it is deemed best to consider it under a separate caption.
At the present time eight states, Massachusetts, Ohio,
New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana and
Maryland have enacted special legislation in relation to the
sweating system. These states include the great cities of
New York, Brooklyn, Jersey City, Boston, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Chicago, Indianapolis and Cincinnati, or prac-
tically all of the chief centers of the sweating system.
Massachusetts, always the pioneer in social legislation,
was the first state to awake to the necessity of taking action
for the lessening of the evils of the sweating system. In
1890 the governor ordered an investigation of the sweating
system in the state. The result of this inquiry was to show
such a condition of affairs that immediately on its report a
law bearing date May 28, 1891, was passed, having for its
purpose the regulation of the system. This act provided
that any place in which clothing was manufactured by other
than the immediate members of a family should be consid-
ered a factory and therefore subject to all the rules and regu-
lations embodied m the factory inspection acts. The pro-
prietor of every such shop was required to notify the inspec-
tion department that he was carrying on such work, and
two extra inspectors were provided for with the special
62 State Actii'itics i>i Relation to Labor in the U. S. [2-AO
duty of inspecting these places. It was further provided
that all clothiiip- made under these conditions should bear a
4
label showing the name of the state and city in which it was
made. This provision was directed against the tenement-
made goods inported into the state from Xew York.
The enforcement of this law was jM-oductive of good re-
sults, but experience showed that it could be improved in a
number of respects. The law was therefore amended in
1892, 1894 and again in 1898. The chief change introduced
was that whereby work performed by single families was
brought under legal regulation. As the law as it now
stands is typical of the legislation in other states its provi-
sions are reproduced verbatim:
No room in any tenement or dwelling house shall be used for
the purpose of making, altering, repairing or finishing therein any
coats, vests, trousers or wearing apparel of any description what-
soever, except by the members of the family dwelling therein, and
any family desiring to do the work of making, altering, repairing
or finishing any coats, vests, trousers or wearing apparel of any
description whatsoever in any room or apartment in any tenement
or dwelling house shall first procure a license, approved by the
chief of the district police, to do such work as aforesaid. A license
may be applied for by and issued to any one member of any family
to do such work. No person, partnership or corporation, shall
hire, employ, or contract with any member of a family not holding
a license therefor, to make, alter, repair or finish any garments or
articles of wearing apparel as aforesaid, in any room or apartment
in any tenement or dwelling house as aforesaid. Every room or
apartment in which any garments or articles of wearing apparel
are made, altered, repaired or finished, shall be kept in a cleanly
condition and shall be subject to the inspection and examination of
the inspectors of the district police for the purpose of ascertaining
whether said garments or articles of wearing apparel or any part or
parts thereof are clean and free from vermin and every matter of an
infectious or contagious nature. A room or apartment in any
tenement or dwelling house which is not used for sleeping or living
purposes, and which is not connected with any room or apartment
used for living or sleeping purposes, and which has a separate or
distinct entrance from the outside, shall not be subject to the provi-
sions of this act. Nor shall anything in this act be so construed as
to prevent the employment of a tailor or seamstress by any person
or family for the making of wearing apparel for such person's or
family's use.
If said inspector finds evidence of infectious disease present in
2J:1] Regulation of the Szccatiiig System. 63
any workshop or in anj' room or apartment in any tenement or
dwelling house in which any garments or articles of wearing
apparel are made, altered or repaired, or in goods manufactured
or in the process of manufacture therein, he shall report the same
to the chief of the district police, who shall then notify the local
board of health to examine said workshop or any room or apart-
ment in any tenement or dwelling house in which any garments or
articles of wearing apparel are made, altered or repaired, and the
materials used therein; and if the said board shall find said work-
shop or tenement or dwelling house in an unhealth}- condition, or
the clothing and materials used therein unfit for use, said board
shall issue such order or orders as the public safety may require.
Whenever it is reported to said inspector, or to the chief of the
district police, or to the state board of health, or to either of them,
that ready made coats, vests, trousers, overcoats or other garments
are being shipped to this commonwealth, having previously been
manufactured in whole or in part under unhealthy conditions, said
inspector shall examine said goods and the condition of their
manufacture, and if upon such examination said goods or any of
them are found to contain vermin or to have been made in improper
places, or under unhealthy conditions, he shall make report thereof
to the state board of health, which board shall therefore make such
order or orders as the public safety may require.
Whoever sells or exposes for sale any coats, vests, trousers or
any wearing apparel of any description whatsoever which have
been made in a tenement or dw-elling house in which the family
dwelling therein has not procured a license, as specified in, section
44 of this act, shall have affixed to each of said garments a tag or
label not less than two inches in length and one inch in width,
upon which shall be legibly printed or written the words " tene-
ment made " and the name of the state and the town or city where
said garment or garments were made.
No person shall sell or expose for sale any of said garments
without a tag or label as aforesaid aiifixed thereto, nor sell or expose
for sale any of said garments with a false or fraudulent label, nor
willfully remove, alter or destroy any such tag or label, upon any
of said garments when exposed for sale.
Whoever violates any of the provisions of this act relating to the
manufacture and sale of clothing made in unhealthy places shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding $200 or by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding six months.
An examination of this law — and the laws of the other
states are very similar — shows the way in which the gov-
ernment has attempted to control the evils of the sweating
system. It will be noticed in the first place that a clear
distinction is made between tenement shop work and tene-
C-i State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [243
nicnt family work. It is rightly felt that the right of family
to do as it pleases with its rooms as regards working in
sleeping rooms shall not be interfered with. The law there-
fore declares that all places in which clothing is manufac-
tured other than by the members of the same family shall
be a factory and must correspond to factory regulations as
regards sanitation, lighting, etc. Work in private families,
however, is subjected to regulation by the provisions that
they must first obtain a license or permit from the chief
factory inspector, which license will not be granted unless
their rooms are in a cleanly condition.
Great prominence, it will be observed, is given to the idea
of considering this question from the standpoint of the
public health. In many respects the most important feature
of the act is that requiring goods made in tenement houses,
that is, in houses used also as sleeping places, to be plainly
marked " tenement made." The purpose of this is evident.
No one desires to purchase clothing that he knows has been
made in dirty, unhealthy tenements. It is believed, there-
fore, that the enforcement of this provision will compel man-
ufacturers to see that their garments are made under other
conditions. The additional requirement that they shall be
marked with the name of tlie state and city in which they
were made is directed against New York tenement made
goods being sold in the state. It is important to observe
that even,' effort is made to hold not only the sweater and
the family responsible for the observance of this law. but
the manufacturers and merchants as well. Experience has
shown that it is exceedingly difficult to prosecute the for-
mer, while the latter can be easily reached. The latter,
moreover, are really the responsible parties.
In New York the factory inspector first called specific
attention to the need of regulating the sweating system in
his report for 1888. In 1891 .special attention was again
given to the subject. The result was the passage of the
law of May 18, 1892. This law was very materially
amcnrlcd and strengthened in the ftiUowing year and again
2-i3] Regulation of the Sweating System. 65
in 1896, 1897 and 1899. The law as it now stands, while
following the general scheme of the Massachusetts law,
differs from it in several important particulars. The purport
of these differences is to make the regulation of the sweat-
ing system still more rigid and effective.
In the first place, the law relates to not only the manu-
facture of wearing apparel of all kinds, but of cigars, cigar-
ettes, artificial flowers, feathers, purses, furs, hats, caps sus-
penders, etc. The manufacture of these articles is abso-
lutely prohibited in any tenement or dwelling house, or in
any rear building in the rear of a tenement or dwelling
house, whether itself used as a dwelling or not, unless a
permit from the factory inspector has been obtained, and
this permit must state the maximum number of persons that
can be employed. A matter of great importance is that
provision which requires every person or firm giving out
work to be done, to keep a record open for inspection of
the names and addresses of all persons to whom the work is
given to be made. The manufacturers can no longer say
that they do not know who does their work or under what
conditions it is performed, as that is a matter belonging to
the contractor. The tag or label " tenement made " must
be affixed to all articles found by the factory inspectors to
have been made under conditions violating the provisions
of this act.
The amendment of 1896 introduced the very important
provision making the owner of any property responsible for
its use in violation of this law, as well as the contractors or
sweaters. No fact has been more clearly demonstrated than
that in order to carry out the purposes of the legislature it
is necessary to make all the parties concerned responsible.
In Pennsylvania the factory inspector first called attention
to the sweating system in his report for 1892. In 1894 a
special investigation of the system in Philadelphia was
undertaken by one of the factory inspectors. The result of
this inquiry was the passage of the law of 1895 which was
afterwards replaced by a new law enacted in 1897. This law
17
G6 State Actiz-itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [244
follows closely the New York law except that it does not
include any provision regarding the tagging of goods with
the mark " tenement made." Eight additional factory in-
spectors were provided for, with the special duty of enforc-
ing the new law.
Chicago, in Illinois, developed the sweating system in
its worst form. The investigations of the factory inspector
showed that while there were but i8 factories manufacturing
clothing in 1895 employing 1421 persons, there were 171 5
contractors or sweating shops with 14,902 employees. This
number was a rapid increase over the preceding year, as in
1894 there were but 1413 shops with 11,102 employees. A
law directed against the sweating system was enacted in
1893, but, as the figures show, has by no means lessened or
even prevented the growth of sweating. The law prohibits
the use of living rooms in a tenement house for the purpose
of the manufacture of certain articles, except by the im-
mediate members of a family, but does not prohibit the
keeping of a workshop in a tenement house. The law also
fails to include in the list of articles to which it relates a
number of important articles. The wholesaler giving out
the work is required to keep a list of the persons to whom
work is given, but he is not in any way responsible if the
goods are made under the sweating system. The inef-
ficiency of the law is chiefly due to the fact that responsi-
bility is placed on the contractor or sweater instead of the
wholesaler, who can more easily be reached by the law.
In Ohio the inspector of factories in his report for 1892
called attention to the sweating system and urged legisla-
tion similar to that of Massachusetts and New York. A
swcating^ law, however, was not enacted till April 27, 1896.
This law is apparently very efificicnt. It provides that no
dwelling or building, or any room connected with any
tenement or dwelling shall be used, except by the immediate
members of the family living therein, for the manufacture
of clothing, cigars or cigarettes unless it corresponds to
certain conditions set forth in the act. These conditions are
245] Regulation of the Szvcating System. 67
that any rooms so used shall be regarded as a factory, and
then subject to inspection, shall be separate from and have
no door, window or other opening into any living or sleep-
ing room, and shall not itself be used as a living or sleeping
room; it shall not even contain beds, bedding or cooking
utensils. It must have a separate entrance of its own, be
well ventilated and lighted, have separate water closets for
the two sexes, and must furnish at least 250 cubic feet of air
space in the day time and 400 cubic feet at night for each
person employed.
No manufacturer shall give out work to any one after the
inspector of factories has notified him that the latter has not
complied with the conditions of the act, and each such
manufacturer is required to keep a record of the names and
addresses of all persons to whom work is given.
New Jersey by an act passed March 17, 1893, prohibited
the manufacture of clothing and tobacco goods in any room
in a dwelling house except by the immediate members of the
family occupying it; and forbade manufacturers giving out
work to be done in a tenement or dwelling house by private
families unless the latter were provided with a permit
granted by the inspector of factories. The law, however, is
very inefifective owing to inadequate penalties, the failure
definitely to fix responsibility and inadequate number of
inspectors to enforce its provisions.
Indiana in 1897 provided an important general factory act.
Among its provisions were a number directed specially
against the sweating system. They are in general similar
to the laws of the other states on this subject.
Maryland has a single one clause act passed April 14,
1896, which makes it a misdemeanor to cause clothing or
any other articles to be made in a place or under circum-
stances involving danger to the public health. The general
way in which this act is worded and the absence of a specific
statement of conditions to be avoided makes this law abso-
lutely worthless.
The essential principles of this legislation directed against
68 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [24G
the sweating system are easily apparent. The first effort
was to bring all the small shops in which clothing was
manufactured under the general factory laws, and thus sub-
ject them to a rigorous inspection as regards their sanita-
tion, heating, lighting, etc. The second was to absolutely
prohibit the location of such shops in buildings occupied as
dwellings or tenements, and thus insure that the same rooms
should not be used as both working and sleeping or living
rooms. The third was to give the inspectors the right to
forbid the manufacture of clothing under unhealthy condi-
tions, or conditions likely to spread disease. Finally to
enforce these regulations an extra force of inspectors has
in almost all cases been provided.
These regulations, it will be observed, relate only to shops
proper, that is, to places where an employer has under him
employees. It would manifestly work a great hardship to
forbid families taking in work. It therefore became neces-
sary specially to exempt work performed by a family with-
out any outside assistance. Families, therefore, as such,
can manufacture clothing in tenements and dwellings. But
it is just with this class of labor that the worst features of the
sweating system are found. The law, therefore, while per-
mitting them to work requires them to obtain a permit from
the factory inspector to do such work, and this permit is
only granted after the inspector has by an examination of
the premises satisfied himself that they are in a clean and
hygienic condition.
The only direct attack on the sweating system is that re-
quiring tenement-made goods to be marked " tenement
made."
The first attempts at legislation were all defective in one
vital i^articular. The prohibitions were directed against,
and the penalties imposed on. the petty sweater or the family.
Experience soon showed that unless an army of inspectors
was employed, it was impossible to ferret out the thousands
of small shops located in cellars, attics and back Iniildings of
tenement houses. In most of the states, therefore, amend-
247] Regulation of the Sxveating System. 69
ments were enacted placing the responsibility on the whole-
sale manufacturer and on the merchant. These were no
longer allowed to shelter themselves behind the statement
that they gave out the work to contractors and did not know
where or under what conditions it was made up. Thence-
forth they were required to keep a record of the names and
addresses of all parties to whom work was given, and if the
inspectors found that the latter were not complying with
the conditions of the law he could notify the manufacturer
and forbid him allowing any more of his work to be done
there. In the same way the merchant was prohibited from
offering for sale any goods made contrary to law.
As regards the practical results achieved by this legisla-
tion there can be no doubt that a great deal of good has
been accomplished in the way of improving the conditions
under which garment workers ply their trade. The in-
spector of factories of Massachusetts in his report for 1893
said : " The present law in Massachusetts has abolished
all tenement house workshops wherein were employed
others than members of the same family dwelling therein,
and it stands as a bulwark against the future introduction of
them, thereby preventing the spread of disease that these
dirty tenement house workshops were very likely to breed.
The only tenement house employment that remains in the
state is confined to private families engaged principally in
the finishing of trousers, and in 95 out of every 100 of these
families the work is done by only one member of the family,
usually the wife and mother. These houses are regulated
by the agency of a license which they are obliged to pro-
cure in order to obtain work."
In the same year, the inspector of factories of New York
reported that " under its (sweating laws) provisions we have
been enabled to wipe out the worst places where clothing
was manufactured and to cause a vast improvement in nearly
every sweating shop in the city of New York. One thing
has been demonstrated satisfactorily so far by the enforce-
ment of the law regulating the manufacture of clothing, and
70 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [248
that is, that the dirt and overcrowding' which were once
the almost invariable attendants of the sweating evil can be
practically wiped ont.'' The report further indicates that
59 modern, well-appointed factory buildings were erected
during the preceding year on sites formerly occupied by
tenements. These buildings were built expressly to accom-
modate the clothing trade under the new conditions. They
are from five to eight stories high, contain 483 separate
shops, and have legal space for 15,477 workpeople. Eighty-
five other tenement buildings were also remodeled and made
into shop buildings, their use for domestic purposes being
then stopped entirely. During the year 17,147 persons em-
ployed in the clothing trade were thus required to leave
tenement and dwelling houses and locate in regular shops
for the performance of their w'ork.
The reports of the other states are similar in character.
They all show that as far as the size of the factory inspec-
tion force permits, the purely physical conditions under
which garment workers are employed can be materially
improved.
In the foreg'oing account of the character and results of
legislation concerning the manufacture of clothing and cer-
tain other commodities, it will be seen that the efforts of
the states have been almost wholly directed to improving
the conditions of the premises in which the work is carried
on. In no case has the state attempted to interfere and say
what sort of a contract an employer should make with his
employees, whether time work should be substituted for
piece work, or to regulate the wages or hours of labor of
employees, except as already fixed by laws directed against
the employment of women and children. The sweating sys-
tem with its piece work system, long hours and small wages
thus remains and must continue to remain untouched by
state laws. To attempt to regulate them by law would in-
volve a departure from the established policy of the govern-
ment not to interfere with the liberty of individuals to make
such contracts as they please, and in the case of most, if not
249] Regulation of the Szveating System. 71
all of the states, would undoubtedly be declared unconstitu-
tional as violating the principle by which the liberty of con-
tracting is guaranteed to every individual. These are fea-
tures, therefore, which, as has been intimated before, must
be improved by the workingmen themselves.
Thus the inspector of factories of Massachusetts in a
recent report says: " I wish to state that thus far through
the enforcement of legislative enactment, the condition
under which clothing was formerly manufactured has been
greatly improved, yet no apparent financial benefit has ac-
crued to the victims of the system, and I am firmly con-
vinced that no legislation can ever be enacted to otherwise
regulate it." The New York factory inspector is of like
opinion, for in his report for 1895 ^^ says: " It must be
said, notwithstanding the improvement noted, that the
sweat shop evil has not been eradicated. Only the surface
conditions have been bettered. The long hours, small
wages, with a constant tendency to lengthen the former and
reduce the latter, still continue, and will always be a part of
the clothing industry in this country while the law permits
the contractors to farm out the clothing to families and pit
one familv against another."
CHAPTER V.
THE INSPECTION OF MINES.
The conditions under which mining operations must be
conducted are so pecuhar and offer dangers of such a nature
that most nations have found it desirable to enact special
laws regulating the manner in which this industry must be
prosecuted. The present chapter is an attempt to show in
a rapid sketch how this obligation has been interpreted by
the different commonwealths of the United States. In
other words, it is desired to show to what extent the mining
of coal in the United States is considered an industry re-
quiring special regulation, and what is the character of this
regulation as it exists at the present time.
Coal is mined in considerable quantities in only a por-
tion of the United States. We therefore find that of the 45
states and three organized territories 18, or slightly over
one-third, do not possess any laws relating specially to coal
mining. In most, if not all of these, there is little or no
mining done. Disregarding these there remain 30 states,
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa. Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland. Mich-
igan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wash-
ington, West \'irginia and Wyoming that have enacted
more or less detailed laws concerning mining. A study of
the extent to which coal mining is subjected to special regu-
lation therefore involves only the consideration of the legis-
lation of these thirty states.
An examination of these various laws shows that a very
general agreement has been reached by the different legisla-
251] The Inspection of Mines. 73
tures in regard to the character of the regulations that
should be provided. The laws of all are strikingly similar.
The same provisions and even the same phraseology are
found repeated in the statutes of state after state. The dif-
ferences that exist are mainly in the extent to which regu-
lation is attempted and the efficiency of the system that is
provided for its enforcement. It is quite feasible, therefore,
to study the legislation of the states as a whole.
If these mining laws be examined analytically it will be
seen that their purposes can be grouped in six distinct
classes: i) the regulation of the employment of women and
children; 2) the formulation of a set of rules and regulations
setting forth more or less specifically the manner in which
the operation of mining must be conducted; 3) the insuring
that competent men will be employed to fill responsible
positions, which is largely done through a system of state
examination and the granting of certificates of competency;
4) the requirement that all fatal or serious accidents be re-
ported and investigated; 5) the protection of the rights of
miners through regulating the manner of weighing or
measuring the quantity of coal mined and the frequency and
character of wage payments; and 6) the provision of an
inspection service for the purpose of insuring that the laws
relating to mining are duly enforced. By taking up each
of these points in turn we shall be able to obtain a clearer
idea of the extent to which these various objects have been
provided for by the different states.
First, in regard to the extent to which the employment of
women and children has been specifically prohibited:
Of the 30 states to which we have accredited mining laws
ten, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Mis-
souri, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wy-
oming, absolutely forbid the employment of women either
in or about mines (clerical work in offices sometimes ex-
cepted). As regards the employment of children 20 pro-
hibit the employment of both sexes under a certain minimum
age. The five states, Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, Ten-
7-i State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [252
nessee and West Virginia have the least rigid exclusion,
their laws providing that children under 12 years of age
shall not be employed. Furthermore, in Missouri, children
under 14, in New Jersey those under 15 and those under 16
in the other states shall not be employed unless they
are able to read and write. Ten states, Arkansas, Idaho,
Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Montana, Pennsylvania, South
Dakota, Washington and Wyoming have fixed the min-
innmi age of employment at 14, and Arkansas has in addi-
tion required boys under 16 to be able to read and write
as a condition precedent to employment. Ohio prohibits
the employment of children under 15 years of age in mines.
The United States statutes on this subject simply provide
that children under 16 years of age can not be employed in
any mine in the territories. These prohibitions apply to
work above as well as under ground, with the exception of
Pennsylvania where the employment of children under 14
years of age in mines is prohibited, but boys between the
ages of 12 and 14 years are allowed to work about mines.
It is interesting to note that but five states have attempted
to regulate the hours of labor of adults in this industr>\
Utah, Colorado and Wyoming have declared eight hours to
constitute the maximum length of the working day that can
be required of any miner, unless extra efforts are required
to save property or life; and Montana in 1897 imposed a
similar limitation on the hours of labor of hoisting engineers
in mines. Ohio passed a somewhat similar law limiting the
hours of labor of railway and mine employees to ten a day.
These restrictions, it should be understood, do not prevent
mine owners from operating their mines any number of
hours, by using different shifts of men.
The constitutionality of these laws has been repeatedly
contested on the ground that they interfered with the liberty
of contract" and the property rights of employers as guar-
anteed by the constitution. The Ohio law was declared
unconstitutional. The Colorado law was likewise annulled
on the ground that it violated a provision of the state con-
253] The Inspection of Mines. 75
stitution. On the other hand, the supreme court of the
United States, in a notable decision in 1898, sustained the
Utah law. This would seem definitely to establish the
power of the states to pass laws limiting the hours of labor
of mine employees, provided their own constitutions did not
contain clauses prohibiting such legislation.
Much the greater portion of the mining laws is devoted
to setting forth in greater or less detail the various regula-
tions which must be observed in the working of mines. The
development of these has been in almost all cases one of
gradual evolution. The earlier laws simply provided that
proper precautions should be taken to secure the safety of
miners. From year to year additional legislation was
enacted, specifying particular conditions that must be ob-
served. In time these provisions were gathered together
and reenacted as a single law, thus constituting what might
be called a mining code.
It is manifestly impracticable to at4;empt here to describe
the exact character of the legislation in each state individu-
ally. Fortunately, even the desirability of doing this does
not exist. The same provisions are found reproduced with
but little change in the laws of almost all the states, the
only difference being in the extent to which the formulation
of mining regulations has been carried. The following
recapitulation of the essential provisions of this legislation
gives all of the material points covered by any of the mining
laws. Some of the states, notably Pennsylvania, cover prac-
tically all of the points here enumerated in their laws, while
others merely include the most important.
The mining code of an American state in its most devel-
oped form therefore provides: i) that every owner, oper-
ator or superintendent of a mine employing over a certain
number of persons, usually ten, shall cause to be prepared
an accurate map or plan of such mine on a scale of 100 or
200 feet to the inch showing all the workings of the mine;
that this map shall be revised at least once in six months in
order to show new workings; that when a mine is aban-
76 State Actk-itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [25-1
cloned a final accurate map must be made of it, and that
copies of these maps must be furnished to the mine inspector
and other copies be kept where they can be readily inspected
at the mines; 2) that in mines where 20 or sometimes ten
persons are employed there must be at least two escapement
openings to the surface from each seam, separated from
each other by natural strata of a certain thickness, 100 or
150 feet; 3) that mines must be so ventilated by artificial
means that there will be furnished a minimum of 100 cubic
feet of air a minute for each person employed; 4) that doors
used to direct or control ventilation be so hung that they
will close automatically and that doorkeepers be provided
for the more important passages; 5) that an adequate supply
of timber for props be constantly available; 6) that suitable
means be provided for raising or lowering workingmen in
mines, and to secure this that the cage used for this purpose
have a top or bonnet of metal to protect the passengers
from articles or rocks j that no single cable be used; that the
cage be equipped with a safety catch; and that the cable
drum be provided with flanges and a brake ; 7) that all pass-
age-ways through which cars pass have shelter holes in the
sides not less than 15 or 30 feet apart into which working-
men may retreat to avoid passing cars; 8) that the mines be
kept well drained; 9) that there be a metal speaking-tube
or other means of vocal communication between the bottom
and top of all shafts; 10) that a certain code of signals,
usually as specified in the act, be employed to regulate
the movement of the cages up and down the shafts; 11) that
only authorized persons be allowed to ride on loaded cars
and cages; 12) that no coal be hoisted while men are ascend-
ing or descending the shafts; 13) that all machinery be
properly guarded; 14) that abandoned passages be closed;
15) that shaft openings be fenced; 16) that steam boilers be
inspected at certain intervals; 17) that only a certain quality
of vegetable or animal oil be used for lighting; 18) that
precautions be taken to prevent injury from falling coal or
rock; 19) that l)lasting operations lie properly regulated;
255] The Inspection of Mines. 77
20) that copies of mining rules be conspicuously posted.
For mines generating fire-damp special precautions must be
taken, as 21) that they be examined ever}^ morning with a
safety lamp before miners go to work; 22) that all safety
lamps be owned by mine owners; 23) that bore holes of a
certain depth be kept in advance of the workings of all
passages when approaching workings.
The above are the usual provisions of a mining code. In
a few cases conditions are given which are not included in
this list. Thus Pennsylvania requires all stables in mines
to be built in the solid strata without the use of wood;
Pennsylvania and Montana, that stretchers be provided for
removing injured workmen; and Kansas, that all blasts be
fired by special firers.
Rules, however, can never replace the personal element.
The best of rules are of but little avail unless competent
men can be secured to supervise their application. The
most significant and important feature of the whole system
of mine regulation, therefore, is that by which a number of
states have sought through a system of examinations to
insure that those in charge of the actual operations of min-
ing shall be competent men. The positions thus specially
provided for are those of mine foreman or boss, fire boss,
and occasionally that of hoisting engineer.
The majority of the mining states, including California,
Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, New Mexico, Tennessee and
West Virginia, simply provide that the underground opera-
tions of mines shall be in charge of a competent superinten-
dent or mining boss, whose special duties are to see that a
proper amount of ventilation is provided, that the walls and
roof are properly timbered, etc., and that in the case of all
mines generating fire-damp there shall be employed a " fire
boss," with the duty of examining all working-places for
gas every morning before the miners go to work.
The more important mining states, however, have gone
much further. They have treated the positions of " mine
boss " and " fire boss " as of such responsibility that no one
rS State Actiz'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [256
is allowed to till them till it is duly certified by the state
that he possesses the required knowledge and experience.
These positions have thus been put into the category of
licensed occupations, such as piloting and plumbing. States
have thus required on the one hand that every mine be
under the supervision of such officers, and on the other that
these officers be in possession of certificates of competency
granted after satisfactory examination.
The Pennsylvania law, for example, provides that on the
petition of any mine inspector the court of common pleas
in any county in the district shall appoint a board of ex-
aminers to consist of a mine inspector, a miner who has
received a certificate of competency, and an operator or
superintendent, whose duty it is to examine all applicants
for the position of mine or fire boss. To secure a certificate
of competency it is necessary for an applicant i) to be at
least 23 years of age; 2) to have had five years' experience
as a miner in bituminous coal mines of the state after he
had attained the age of 15 years; 3) to be a citizen of the
state; 4) to be of good moral character; and 5) to pass an
examination as to his knowledge of mining. Certificates of
two grades are granted, that of the first grade to those
who have had the experience which qualified them to serve
in mines producing gas; and that of the second grade to
those who have not had this experience and therefore can
not be employed in such mines. In order to protect those
serving as mine or fire bosses when the act was passed, it
was provided that " certificates of service " should be
granted to those who had been employed with the same
company during the year preceding, with the proviso, how-
ever, that before they could take service with another com-
pany they should obtain a certificate of competency.
Illinois, Indiana, Alabama. Montana and Wyoming have
followed the lead of Pennsylvania and have enacted almost
iflentical provisions, the first two requiring in addition that
all hoisting engineers must also be provided with certificates
of competency.
257] The Inspection of Mines. 79
As the prevention of accidents constitutes the most im-
portant purpose of mine regulation, it is evidently very de-
sirable that accurate information should be obtained con-
cerning the frequency and causes of accidents, in order to
determine the responsibility for such occurrences, and
whether any progress in their prevention is being made.
Every one of the 20 states possessing factory codes, with
possibly one or two exceptions, requires that the mine
owner or superintendent shall report to the inspector oi
mines every accident resulting in death or serious injury
to an employee. It is further provided that in case of fatal
accidents the coroner shall be notified and an inquiry held
to determine the person at fault for its occurrence. The
mine inspectors are also required to embody in their regular
reports statements of all accidents occurring during the
year. The information thus afiforded is of great value, but
unfortunately in no case does it approach anything like
desirable detail. The term " serious injury " which occurs
in all the acts is altogether too vague and uncertain. In
order to be of the maximum value the report of each acci-
dent should show the cause of such accident, the extent of
the injury caused, whether resulting in death, total or partial
incapacity for labor, or temporary disability, the length of
time so disabled, the age of the person injured, and whether
the accident was due to the fault of the person injured, to
another, or to an unavoidable cause. Whatever the infor-
mation obtained, however, it is to be regretted that greater
uniformity does not exist between the practice of reporting
accidents in the different states. Improvement in the col-
lection of statistics of accidents to miners is largely de-
pendent on the mine inspectors of the different states adopt-
ing the same form of report for accidents.
We now turn to what may be called the keystone to the
whole system of state regulation of mines — viz.: the ap-
pointment of state of^cers or mine inspectors with the duty
of personally supervising or controlling certain features in
mining and seeing that the conditions required by the state
80 State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [258
are complied with. It has been the universal experience
that labor legislation is of little utility unless some system
of good government supervision is at the same time pro-
vided. In a way, therefore, the measure of the efficiency of
mine regulation is that of the efficiency of mine inspection.
Most of the mining states have recognized the necessity
for government supervision, and 2y states have made some
provision for the inspection of mines. The majority of
these, viz.: Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Alaryland,
Michigan, Missouri, Utah, Washington and Wyoming, have
provided for only one inspector. In North Carolina and
Tennessee, the commissioner of labor is the inspector. In
New Jersey and New York, where there are no coal mines,
the offices of inspector of factories and mines are combined.
Maine, which also has no coal mines, has an inspector of
factories, workshops and mines, but his duties seem to be
of a purely statistical character. The United States statute
provides that an inspector of mines shall be appointed by
the president for each territory producing looo tons of coal
yearly. Colorado, Indiana, Montana and West Virginia
each has two inspectors; Alabama and Iowa each has three
inspectors; Washington has a state geologist who acts as
mine inspector, and has two assistant inspectors; Illinois
has seven inspectors; Ohio has one chief inspector and seven
district inspectors; and Pennsylvania has one inspector
for each district containing not less than 60 nor more than
80 mines.
The duties of inspectors are generally stated to be to in-
spect all mines with specified frequency, yearly, semi-
annually or quarterly, and to see that all the requirements
of the law relating to mining are strictly complied witli. In
addition to these general duties, however, it is usual to
specify that they shall keep an exact record of all inspec-
tions, and that they shall report annually or biennially,
showing particularly the condition of the mining industry
and the number of accidents. These reports therefore serve
the double purpose of showing the results accom])lished by
259] The Inspection of Mines. 81
inspection, and giving general statistics and other informa-
tion concerning mines.
For the enforcement of mining laws, with their technical
provisions, it is evident not only that a considerable tech-
nical knowledge is required of the inspectors, but that no
small degree of discretion must be left to them in the en-
forcement of the obligations which they impose. It is
liighly desirable, therefore, that competent and specially
trained men should be secured for these positions. As the
most certain w^ay of accomplishing this, the practice is now
becoming general for these officers to be selected only on
satisfying certain requirements and passing a wholly or
partly competitive examination.
The Pennsylvania system thus provides for a board
of examiners to be composed of two mining engineers and
three other persons who have passed examinations as mine
inspectors or mine foremen, to examine candidates for the
position of inspector of mines. The examination must be in
writing, with an oral examination concerning explosive
gases and safety lamps. Candidates must be citizens of
the state, of temperate habits, 30 years of age or over, wdth
at least live years' experience in bituminous coal mining
in the state, and an experience in mines generating fire-
damp. The names of successful candidates are certified
to the governor, who makes the appointments.
Illinois has a board of examiners composed of two prac-
tical miners, two coal operators and one mining engineer
appointed by the bureau of labor statistics. The qualifica-
tions required of inspectors are about the same as in Penn-
sylvania. In Indiana the inspector is appointed by the
state geologist after an examination, and an assistant in-
spector is appointed by the latter, also after an examination.
Both must have had an experience of at least ten years
in practical mining. In California the examining board is
appointed by certain judges, and the inspectors must be 30
years of age and have had five years' mining experience.
In Washington the board consists of three practical coal
18
83 State Actiz-itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [260
miners, three coal operators and a mining engineer, and the
inspector must have two years' experience. Iowa has a
board composed of two miners, two operators and a min-
ing engineer, and the inspector must be 25 years of age
with five years' experience. The other states which do not
possess mining boards usually specify that inspectors must
be of a certain age, possess both a theoretic and practical
knowledge of mining, and have had an experience in prac-
tical mine work for a certain number of years. In all cases
it is provided that inspectors must not be financially inter-
ested in any mine in the state.
The last class of mining laws are in their nature quite
distinct from those we have been considering. They have
for their object the regulation of the relations between mine
operators and their employees. The economic dependence
of the miners has undoubtedly in some cases been taken
advantage of in the past, and the miners defrauded or at
least unjustly treated in a number of ways. The two great-
est grievances of the miners have been that the employers
have not given them credit for all the coal mined by them
and that they have been compelled to trade at stores owned
and conducted by the mine owners.
In itself the establishment by the companies of stores to
supply the wants of their employees possesses nothing detri-
mental to the rights or liberties of the workingmen. On the
other hand there is no reason why they should not serve a
useful purpose. Unfortunately there can be little doubt
that in many instances these stores have been used by com-
panies as a means of oppression. Miners were compelled
to trade at the store conducted by their employers, and to
insure their doing so they were frequently paid in scrip
orders on the store instead of in money. A system of credit
was at fhe same time practised which kept the workingman
constantly in debt to the company, and as the wages were
withhclrl to meet this indebtedness, employees would fre-
quently go for long periods without receiving any money
that they could dispose of as they saw fit. There was no
361] The Lispcctioji of Mines. 83
check on the prices that could be charged for commodities.
Any increase in wages could thus be made a fiction.
For a long time this " truck system," as it was called,
constituted one of the greatest sources of friction that ex-
isted between the mine owners and their employees. The
miners themselves did not possess sufificiently strong or-
ganizations to offer a successful resistance. Great pressure
was therefore brought to bear on the legislatures of all the
mining states to prohibit by law the system of company
stores, and most of the states passed laws to this effect.
This prohibition has taken two forms, either directly for-
bidding mining companies to own or control stores, or more
often requiring that all wages shall be paid in money, or if
paid in scrip that this scrip shall be redeemable on demand
in money. At the same time the payment of wages as often
as once every two weeks was made obligatory.
The constitutionality of these laws has been attacked in a
great many instances, and many of them have been de-
clared unconstitutional. In Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri
and Tennessee they were declared void because they vio-
lated the liberty of contract guaranteed by the constitution.
In Tennessee the curious ground was taken that such a law
indirectly provided for imprisonment for debt, which was
prohibited by the constitution. In Indiana, however, the
law was upheld and New York avoided any constitutional
objections by limiting the scope of the law to corporations.
In spite of the fact that laws regulating the payment of
wages have been declared void in so many states, the results
desired have in great part been accomplished. This has
been due, on the one hand, to the arousing of public opinion
on the subject, and on the other, to the fact that employers
are beginning to recognize more fully their obligations
toward their employees.
As regards the second complaint, concerning the man-
ner of determining the amount of coal mined by each miner,
practically all of the 20 states under consideration have
enacted laws the purpose of which is to insure that the
8-i State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [262
coal is honestly weighed. There is little difference between
the legislation of the several states. The typical method of
regulation is to prescribe that at all mines there shall be
provided with suitable and accurate scales for weighing coal ;
that these scales shall be inspected periodically by mine
inspectors or the miners themselves; that the weighman
must take oath to perform his duties honestly and keep an
accurate record of the amount of coal weighed; that these
records shall be open to inspection; and finally, as an addi-
tional precaution, that the miners shall have the right to
employ a " check-weighman " who shall be permitted by
the company to superintend the weighing of all coal, and
thus control the work of the company's employee. In case
such a check-weighman is employed he must also be sworn
and must keep an accurate record of the coal weighed.
Some states, as Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia,
also require that all cars be numbered, and their weight and
capacity plainly marked on each one.
A few states, notably Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mis-
souri and Washington have exercised a more direct inter-
vention and made it compulsory on all mine operators to
weigh coal before it is screened. This law has been re-
sisted by the mine operators, and in Illinois at least has been
declared unconstitutional, because it is special legislation
and deprives persons of the liberty of making their own
contracts.
We have now passed in review the various ways in which
the operations of mining have been subjected to special
regulation by the states. Experience has amply demon-
strated that this interference on the part of the government,
and the formulation of regulations setting forth in detail the
various precautions that must be taken, have been abso-
lutely necessary for the protection of miners against acci-
dents. The present degree of regulation has been the result
of a gradual growth, and the goal has as yet been by no
means reached. Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, West Vir-
ginia and several other important coal mining states are
263] The Inspection of Mines. 85
now in possession of quite complete mining codes, but the
majority of states have far from reached this standard. The
latter have, however, the completer legislation of the former
states as models, and not a year passes without additions
and improvements to the mining laws of some of them.
To one looking over the whole field it seems that the
most important step that can be taken is to extend the
system already practised by a number of states of securing
the thorough and frequent inspection of mines by compe-
tent officials and the requirement of certificates of compe-
tency on the part of men assigned to fill responsible posi-
tions. James Bryce, with his accustomed perspicuity has
said that good men can make any political system work
tolerably, but that no system however perfect will give
satisfactory results unless in the hands of honest and capable
persons. What is true of political machinery is equally
true of industrial organization. Certainly it is desirable
to have a good code of mining regulations, but it is more
important still that capable men be secured to direct their
application.
CHAPTER VI.
INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION AND
ARBITRATION.
The power to enact legislation in relation to the settle-
ment of labor difficulties lies entirely within the domain of
the individual states, with the single exception that the
control of the federal government over interstate commerce
gives it power to enact legislation in relation to labor dis-
putes affecting transportation companies engaged in such
work.
For all practical purposes, the year 1886 marks the begin-
ning of modern legislation on the part of the state for the
arbitration or conciliation of strikes. Prior to that date
New Jersey in i860, Pennsylvania in 1883 and Ohio in 1885
had, to be sure, passed laws in relation to this subject, but
their provisions were of little importance, merely granting
permission to employers and employees to settle their dis-
putes through arbitration, a right which they really pos-
sessed without such legislation.
In 1886, however, a radical departure from the character
of this legislation was made. In that year Massachusetts
and New York each passed a law providing for the creation
of a permanent state board of arbitration and conciliation
to which industrial disputes might be referred for settle-
ment. The lead of these two states was quickly followed,
and at the present time there arc 24 states ' with legislation
in relation to the arbitration and conciliation of labor dis-
putes upon their statute books.
* Massachusetts, New York, Montana. Micliipan. California, New
Jersey, Ohio, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Connecticut, Illi-
nois, Maryland, Utah, Indiana, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas,
Iowa, Pennsylvania, Texas, Missouri and Nebraska.
2651 Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration. 87
It is manifestly impracticable within the limits of this
monograph to attempt a statement of the character of the
legislation of each of these states. Of the 24 states men-
tioned but 16 ' make provision for a permanent state board
of arbitration, and in but four or five of these has any
effective system been inaugurated in virtue of these laws.
The laws of the remaining states for the most part only
provide that when the parties desire or petition for it, local
or temporary tribunals can be created for the arbitration of
their disputes.
The Missouri law provides that when differences arise
between employers and employees threatening to result or
resulting in a strike or lockout, it shall be the duty of the
commissioner of labor to mediate between the parties to the
controversy, if either party requests his intervention, and
under certain circumstances to form local boards of arbi-
tration. Similar powers are conferred on the commissioner
of labor statistics of the state of North Dakota.
The laws of Pennsylvania, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland and
Texas simply authorize the law courts to appoint tribunals
of voluntary arbitration when the parties to labor disputes
petition for or consent to their appointment, the jurisdiction
of such tribunals being limited to the county or portion of
the state in which the dispute may arise.
These laws merit but little attention. The parties to such
controversies have rarely if ever availed themselves of the
provisions of the laws in the states where there are no regu-
larly constituted boards of arbitration.
As regards the legislation of many of the states provid-
ing for permanent boards, the same statement can be made.
In some of these states no boards have ever been constituted
in virtue of the law, and in others but insignificant results
have been accomplished by the boards after they have been
organized. From every point of view, the systems created
^ Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Connecticut,
Illinois, Montana, Michigan, California, Louisiana, Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Utah, Indiana, Idaho and Colorado.
88 State Actk'itics in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [26(>
by the states of Massachusetts and New York are the most
worthy of study. They were the first created and have now
had an uninterrupted existence of 13 years or more, and
the work done by them is far in excess of that done by all
the other boards combined. The systems created in both
states are ver^' similar. The following is a brief statement
of the essential features of the Massachusetts law:
A state board of conciliation and arbitration is created to
consist of three persons appointed by the governor of the
state. One of these persons must be an employer selected
from some association representing employers of labor, one
not an employer and selected from some labor organization,
and the third to be selected by the two. Their term of office
is three years, one retiring each year, and their salary
$2000 each a year.
The usual method of bringing controversies before the
board is as follows: Whenever any dispute arises between
an employer of 25 or more persons on the one side and his
employees on the other, cither party can make application
to the board for its intervention. These applications must
be signed by the employer or a majority of the employees
in the department of business in which the difference exists,
or by their duly authorized agent. On the receipt of this
application the board must as soon as possible visit the
establishment, make a careful inquiry concerning the cause
of the dispute, and make a written statement of its decision,
which decision must be properly recorded and also at once
made public.
In the hearing of the case, either of the parties can ask
for the appointment of a person to act in the case as expert
assistant to the board. Such expert will receive for his
services $7 a day and necessary traveling expenses.
The decision of the board is binding on the parties who
join in the application for six months, or till either party
has given a 60 days' notice of his intention not to continue
to abide by the decision.
It is also made the duty of the mayor or mimicijial au-
267] Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration. 89
thorities of cities and towns to notify the board when a strike
or lockout is seriously threatened or actually occurs.
In addition to thus intervening when called on, it is the
duty of the board whenever it receives information, either
through the mayors or town authorities or others, that a
strike or lockout as above described is threatening or in
progress, to put itself in communication with the parties,
and endeavor by mediation to effect an amicable settlement
between them or to refer the matter to arbitration for settle-
ment. In such cases the board can, if it deems it advisable,
investigate the causes of the trouble, determine the party
which it believes to be at fault and publish its findings,
assigning the proper responsibility.
Provision is finally made that parties to disputes can if
they desire refer the matter to a local board of arbitration to
be created for that purpose, in the manner laid down by the
act.
The most important feature to be noted in this as well as
in the legislation of all the other states is that not the slight-
est attempt has been made to introduce the principle of com-
pulsory arbitration. The general feeling in the United
States in regard to this subject is that while such a measure
might be desirable, no way has as yet been devised by which
such a scheme could be made to work. The chief, if not the
only reliance must be placed on the good faith of the parties
and the moral effect exerted by the decision of the board.
The arbitration boards of most of the states have either
been in existence for a short time, or their operations have
been on so small a scale that little can be learned concerning
their efficiency.
The boards of Massachusetts and New York, however,
have now been in existence 13 years, and their annual re-
ports afford valuable data for a study of methods of arbitra-
tion. The reports of the board of New York are not so
compiled as to permit of a tabulated statement of the work
achieved. The following table, however, compiled from
the annual reports of the Massachusetts board, shows that
90
State Activities in Relation to Labor in the U. S. [368
the work of the board, at least quantitatively considered, is
of much importance.
Year.
Cases
c'itod in
annual
rei>ort.
Estimated yearly
earnings of em-
ployees directly
concerned.
Estimated yearly
earnings of all em-
ployees in factories
concerned.
Cost of
maintaining
board.
1S86
4
1887
21
1888
41
$0.53,170
$.5,735,002
$8,602 30
1889
2G
3,084,000
10,162,000
8,483 88
1800
34
4,0.56,195
12,044,525
8,108 86
1891
30
2,307,000
9,038,750
8,592 36
1802
40
2,034,804
8,986,210
10,430 44
1893
3G
1,652,246
8,637,625
8,980 00
1894
39
0,054,900
10,039,700
10,873 15
1895
32
1,704,666
7,483,2.50
10,028 16
1896
36
1,036,360
3,840,800
10,397 87
1897
31
1,210,300
10,012,480
11,305 86
1898
22
4,227,570
7,849,703
8,714 07
In regard to the value of the work of these boards, though
they have far from obviated strikes, or even been as effective
as it was hoped they would be, it is the general opinion that
the boards have proven to be useful institutions.*
The boards themselves undoubtedly think that they ac-
complish results of sufficient importance to justify their
maintenance. The Massachusetts board thus says in one
of its reports: " It is very confidently to be asserted, as we
have said in. former reports, that arbitration and conciliation
* The contrary opinion is held by Mr. North in his article. Indus-
trial arbitration, its methods and its limitations, Quarterly Journal
of Economics, July, 1896.
269] Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration. 91
in the name of the state are fully justified by practical ex-
perience in this Commonwealth." Mr. Cummins, who has
made a careful examination of the work of these boards on
two separate occasions, is of the same opinion. He well
says: "They (the board) accomplish much more than they
actually decide. Their work is largely preventive. They
remove the last excuse for gratuitous resort to industrial
warfare by employer or employee. They lend official dig-
nity to all important principles of peaceful negotiation. They
menace the guilty with the displeasure of public opinion,
which is nowadays more and more backed by money as well
as morals, and they strengthen the weak with the hope of
aid against oppression. They stand for a generous recog-
nition of industrial liberty as opposed to class theories of
compulsion. In the official organ of impartial investigation
they also remove the last excuse for unwise and unintelli-
gent meddling on the part of public opinion." *
* As is well known, the federal government has taken action
regarding the arbitration of labor disputes affecting interstate com-
merce, first by the act of October i, 1888, and later by the act of
June I, 1898. Interesting as is the legislation its consideration does
not fall within the scope of this paper.
THE HISTORY OF SUFFRAGE
IN VIRGINIA
Series XIX Nos. 6-7
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor
History is past Politics and Politics are present History. — Freeman
THE HISTORY OF SUFFRAGE
IN VIRGINIA
By JULIAN A. C. CHANDLER, Ph. D.
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
JUNE-JULY, 1901
Copyright, 1901, by
JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
Z^t JSotb (§afhmorc (prcee
TMH FKir.l)iNWAI.I) COMPANY
BAI.TIMORB, MD., U. S. A.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
Suffrage Before 1830.
The Franchise in 1619. Laws of 1655, 1656, 1670 and 1676. Freehold
Suffrage from 1676 to 1776. Suffrage as regulated by the Charters of
Williamsburg and Norfolk. Constitution of 1776. Suffrage in Rich-
mond and other towns.
CHAPTER II.
Struggle for the Extension of Suffrage.
Jefferson's ideas. Munford's views. Newspaper discussions. Peti-
tion of Accomac citizens in 1810. Fight for a constitutional convention
from 1810 to 1830.
CHAPTER III.
Discussion Over Suffrage in the Convention of 1829-30.
Prominence of members. West vs. East. Universal Suffrage vs. Free-
hold system. Unsatisfactory compromise.
CHAPTER IV.
Steps to Free Manhood Suffrage.
The unintelligibility of the Constitution of 1829-30. Trouble to
the General Assembly in contested elections. Double voting. Eastern
Virginia in favor of Universal Suffrage. Clamor for another convention.
CHAPTER V.
The Establishment of Universal White Suffrage.
The Convention of 1850-51. Little opposition to extension of suffrage.
The western measures adopted. Suffrage unrestricted by a poll-tax or
educational qualification.
CHAPTER VI.
The "Underwoob Constitution."
Formation of West Virginia. The Alexandria government, and con-
stitution of 1864. Disqualifications imposed on Confederate soldiers.
Removal of same. Schofield as military governor. " Underwood Con-
vention," 1867. The members. Disregard of the whites. Their disfran-
chisement. L^niversal negro suffrage. Adoption of the constitution
with disfranchising clauses removed. Amendment to constitution in 1876
requiring poll-tax to vote. Repeal of same in 1882. Agitation of a
constitutional convention, and call for same approved by people. Atti-
tude towards the negro.
PREFACE
This monograph and my previous paper on " Repre-
sentation in Virginia," pubHshed in the Fourteenth Series
of the Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and
PoHtical Science, form chapters of a Constitutional His-
tory of Virginia, which is now in preparation. At the
present moment great interest centers in the govern-
mental history of the State, as Virginia is upon the eve of
adopting a new Constitution. In view of this fact, it is to
be hoped that this paper, by tracing out the history of
suffrage in Virginia, may be of service in the discussion of
the all-important question, the elective franchise. It is
generally conceded that, though many subjects of great
political interest are now before the people of the State,
none is more important than the suffrage question. The
Constitutional Convention was called primarily for the
purpose of making changes in the electorate.
Thanks are due to Professors Herbert B. Adams and
J. M. Vincent, of the Johns Hopkins University, and to
Mr. W. W. Scott, of the Virginia State Library, for val-
uable suggestions in the preparation of this essay.
J. A. C. Chandler.
Richmond, Va., May i, igor.
THE HISTORY OF SUFFRAGE IN VIRGINIA
CHAPTER I.
SUFFRAGE BEFORE 1830.
In 1619 the people of Virginia were, for the first time,
granted the rights of suffrage. At that time came Gover-
nor Yeardley who, as an officer of the London Company, ^
estabhshed in Virginia a representative form of govern-
ment ^ and called the first Legislative Assembly that ever
met on American soil. In the writs which ordered the
election of " Burgesses," he ordained that they should be
elected by the " inhabitants " of the colony.'
Two years later Sir Francis Wyatt, who came as the
successor of Yeardley, brought to the colony the famous
" Ordinance and Constitution " of July 24, 162 1. By this
constitution the privileges which had been granted by
Yeardley were affirmed by the London Company, and
again it was stated that the Burgesses were to be chosen *
by the " inhabitants." '
At first glance one would think that the Virginia Colony
had universal suffrage, that both men and women exercised
the privilege and duty of voting; but, if we read between
the lines the election law of 1646 (a law enacted with refer-
ence to the mode of conducting elections, and in no way
intended to define an elector's qualifications), it is evident
that the right of suffrage was granted only to freemen, ex- ■*
cept that " indented " or " covenant " servants were to be
^ Chandler's Representation in Virginia (J. H. U. Studies, 14th
Ser.). p. 12 et seq.
° Smith's Hist, of Va., vol. ii, p. 39. ^ Hening, vol. i, p. 112.
10 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [280
recogriized as freemen.' In 1655, the right of suffrage
was, for the first time, abridged, being confined to " house-
keepers, wliether freeholders, leaseholders or otherwise
tenants," but the term " housekeepers " was to be so con-
strued that only one in a family was to have the right to
vote.'
At the next session of the General Assembly (1656), the
right of suffrage was again extended to all freemen, because
the Burgesses considered it " something hard and unagree-
able to reason that any person shall pay equal taxes and
yet have no votes in elections." ' By the revised laws of
1658 the franchise was still allowed to all freemen.' In 1670
the right of suffrage was restricted. The following is a
part of the act:
" Whereas the usuald way of chuseing burgesses by the
votes of all persons who, haveing served their tyme, are
flfreemen of this country, who haveing little interest in
the country, doe oftener make tumults at the elections
to the disturbance of his majesties peace, than by their
discretions in their votes provide for the conservasion
thereof, by making choyce of persons fitly qualified for the
discharge of soe greate a trust, and. whereas the lawes of
England * grant a voyce in such elections only to such as
by their estates real or personall have interest enough to
tye them to the endeavor of the publique good: It is
hereby enacted that none but freeholders and housekeepers,
who only are answerable to the publique for the levies, shall
hereafter have a voyce in the election of any burgesses." *
In 1676 occurred Bacon's Rebellion, a rebellion for the
* ?Icning. vol. i, p. 334. ° Ibid., vol. i, p. 412.
" Ibid., vol. i, p. 403. ' Ibid., vol. i. p. 475.
" In the time of Henry VI the franchise in England was limited
to those who' had estates of a rental value of 40 shillings a year.
In the commonwealth period it was extended to all persons owning
200 pounds' worth of property, whether real or personal. On the
restoration of the Stuarts the old freehold qualification was again
reenacted. Feilden's Const. History of England, pp. 132-133.
• Hening, vol. ii, p. 280.
281] Suffrage before 1830. 11
rights of freemen, and one of the first laws passed by the
General Assembly which was summoned by Virginia's first
rebel, was the repeal of the act of 1670 and the extension
of suffrage once more to all freemen/"
Free manhood suffrage was not in accord with the nar-
row ideas of Charles II; so, in 1676, he wrote to Sir William
Berkeley: "You shall take care that the members of the
Assembly be elected only by freeholders as being more
agreeable to the custom of England, to which you are, as
nigh as conveniently you can, to conform yourself." " The
following year, through the influence of Berkeley and the
King, a law was enacted that freeholders only were to be
electors. This was the first law which cut off housekeepers
who were not freeholders."
In 1699, the General Assembly reaffirmed the statute of
1676, but in addition enacted that " no woman, sole or
covert, infants under the age of twenty-one years, or re-
cusant convict, being freeholders " should enjoy the fran-
chise." The wording of this act shows that the parties
mentioned as unqualified to vote had never had the right,
and that the disfranchising clause was simply the embodi-
ment of the then existing customary law.
In 1705, the General Assembly adopted what might be
termed a revised code of laws. In this code a freeholder
is defined as a person who has " an estate real for his own
life, or the life of another, or any estate of any great
dignity."
Under this statute a freehold was merely nominal; and,
as a result, many fraudulent " leases of small and incon-
siderable parcels of land upon feigned considerations " were
often made by the candidates for the House of Burgesses
^^ Hening, vol. ii, p. 356. " Ibid., vol. ii, p. 425.
" Ibid., vol. ii, p. 425. This is not the view expressed by Hening
in the preface to his first volume. According to Hening the first
statute to restrict suffrage to freeholders only was the act of 1670.
That act certainly granted the franchise to housekeepers.
" Hening, vol. iii, p. 172. " Ibid., vol. iii, p. 240.
12 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [282
or by tlieir agents/' so as to control an election. Because
of such fraud practiced in the elections, a desire arose for
an electorate composed of only bona fide freeholders, pos-
sessing a sufficiently large landed estate to make them truly
interested in all public questions. The cheapness '" of land
made it easy to acquire a small freehold; and, for this rea-
son, among the higher and ruling class, there was a feeling
for a much higher property qualification. If we can rely
upon Governor Spotswood's statement, in 1712, the Vir-
ginia Assembly was composed of extremely worthless rep-
resentatives. He claimed that this condition was due to
a defect in the \^irginia constitution which allowed every
man who could acquire as much as one-half of an acre of
land the right to vote." Even a free negro if he was a
freeholder was a voter." The statement is also made that
the Virginians favored the extension of suffrage to all free-
men. The English Board of Trade, however, instructed
Governor Spotswood and the Council in Virginia to pro-
pose a law to increase the qualifications of electors. The
Board of Trade further said, if the colony refused to assent,
that Spotswood should try to enforce his instructions, and
that the Board would see that something was done in
England to force the colonists to obedience." The oppo-
sition of the Governor and the Board of Trade to a liberal
suffrage, together with the discovery of an intended negro
insurrection," undoubtedly influenced the Virginia Assem-
bly to pass an act in 1723, by which negroes, mulattoes and
Indians, though they were freeholders, were deprived of the
privilege of voting." And finally, in 1736, an act was passed
'" Ibid., vol. iv, p. 475.
'"The right to a fifty-acre freehold could be secured for five
shillings. (Ballagh: White Servitude in Va., p. 86.)
" Sainsburr MSS., Package iii (1706-1714), under date of Oct. 15,
1712. and Spotswood's Letter, vol. ii, pp. 1-2.
" Ibid., Package i (1606-1740), p. 158.
"Ibid.. Package iii (1706-1714), under .'Xpril 2^, 1713. and July 20,
I?!."?-
'" Ibid., Dec. 20. 1722. *' Hening. vol. iv. p. 133.
283] Suffrage before 1830. 13
by which a freehold was made to consist of one hundred
acres of uncultivated land without a house, or twenty-five
acres of improved land with a house on it. A house and
lot in a town constituted a freehold. When a piece of land
was held by several joint tenants, not more than one vote
could be cast in respect of that land, " unless the quantity
be sufficient to allot to each joint tenant, or tenant in com-
mon, one hundred acres at least, if the same be uninhabited,
or twenty-five acres with a house and plantation thereon." "
No person was allowed to vote because of his freehold,
unless he had been in possession of it for at least twelve
months before the issuing of the writ for the election." As
had been enacted in 1723, a negro, mulatto, Indian, feme
sole or covert, minor, or recusant convict could not vote,
though qualified with a freehold.
In 1762 and again in 1769 the General Assembly enacted
that the franchise should be extended to a man who owned
fifty acres (instead of one hundred) of uninhabited and un-
cultivated land, but to both of these acts the English sover-
eign refused approval." The other features of the law of
1736 were left unchanged. These two acts, though failing
to become laws in Virginia, show that the people of the
colony were in favor of allowing the owners of small free-
holds a voice in the government.
Virginia always held closely to English institutions;
partly because the people were lovers of the institutions of
the mother-country, and partly because the kings of Eng-
land, or the governors of the colony acting under royal
'' Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 475, 476.
^^ Moreover, the freeholder had to vote in the county where his
freehold was located, but this was never strictly enforced. Often
a man voted in the county which was most convenient. This lasted
till 1830. A freeholder could also vote in as many counties as he
had freeholds. This was not prohibited till 1851. (Nation, April
27, 1893-)
" Hening, vol. vii, p. 518; vol. viii, p. 305. Every law passed in
Virginia had to be sent to England for the King's approval before
it became binding on the colony. The Board of Trade usually
acted for the King.
14 Tlw History of Suffrage in Virginia. [284
instructions, instituted on \'irginia soil, even though the
people might not sanction them, such practices as had
existed in England. Even as in England one system of
franchise existed in the counties and another in the bor-
oughs, so in Virginia the city of Williamsburg and the
borough of Norfolk had, under their charters, special privi-
leges as to suffrage. In 1722 the city of Williamsburg
received from George I. a charter by which the right of
suffrage was granted: (i) to any man who owned a house
and lot in the town; (2) to any person who had any " visi-
ble " estate of fifty pounds current money, and (3) to any
person who, after having served an apprenticeship of five
years in the city, had become a housekeeper and inhabitant
of the town. In 1742, the General Assembly passed an act
explanatory of this charter. It declared: (i) that in case
of joint ownership of a house and lot, only one vote could
be cast because of that freehold, and that no vote should
be cast unless the joint owners could agree; (2) that a
person who owned any property of fifty pounds value had
to be a resident of the town for at least twelve months
before the election, and (3) that a person who had served
an apprenticeship in the town had to be an actual resident
and housekeeper of the town at the time of the election."
Of course, no residential qualifications were required of the
freeholders of the city, as every man in Virginia could vote
in every place where he had a freehold.
In 1736, a charter was granted to the borough of Nor-
folk. The same privileges of suffrage which Williamsburg
enjoyed were allowed to the citizens of Norfolk." In all
other boroughs in Virginia only freeholders were to enjoy
suffrage for the election of numbers to the General As-
sembly."
" Hening, vol. v, p. 204. *' Ibid., vol. vi, p. 261.
" Ibid., vol. iii, p. 236. Jamestown, for instance, had the privilege
of electing a burgess, but only freeholders living on the island
could vote. After Williamsburg became the capital, there were
only about ten freeholders at Jamestown.
285] Suffrage before i8jo. 15
The English system of allowing Parliamentary represen-
tation to the universities was applied to the College of
William and Mary. By its charter of 1693 one burgess was
allowed that institution.** The right to elect this burgess
was given to the president and professors of the college
without reference to any qualification of property or resi-
dence. Here was an educational qualification on a small
scale.
In colonial days aristocracy prevailed. As we have just
seen, suffrage was in all the rural districts confined to the
freeholders, so that only a small per cent, of the population
could vote; but aristocratic principles are to be seen in still
another way so widely different from our modern days.
Now every petty official is elected by popular vote, but in
colonial days no man voted except for burgesses, and the
election of these was often infrequent. Sometimes there
were annual elections, and sometimes the General Assem-
bly, just as the English Parliament, was prorogued from
year to year, so that a new election might not take place in
seven, eight or ten years. How little power the people had
in their government when compared with the present con-
ditions! Even in towns the people sometimes had no
voice in the municipal government. In Williamsburg and
Norfolk, however, the qualified voters had the right to elect
their municipal officers. There were many more towns in
Virginia at the opening of the Revolutionary War, but they
were not incorporated, and their affairs were in the hands of
Trustees, who were named in the acts by which the towns
were established; and, therefore, the people in these small
towns had no voice in the town affairs, except that, in some
instances, vacancies among the Trustees were filled by an
election, but more frequently the Trustees themselves had
the power to fill the vacancies."
^* Charter of William and Mary, Morrison's College of William
and Mary, p. 19.
™ There were two kinds of towns in Virginia: (i) The incorpo-
rated towns, which had a mayor, council, etc., elected directly or
16 Tliv History of Suffrage in Virginia. [386
Thus matters stood in 1776 when Virginia threw off the
British yoke. In the convention of 1776, which drew up
Virginia's first constitution, George Mason, the author of
the famous " Declaration of Rights," was the only man
who advocated a change of suft'rage. He proposed to ex-
tend the franchise to all persons twenty-four years old who
had an estate of inheritance of land of 1000 pounds value,
and to all having leases in which there was an unexpired
term of at least seven years. He also proposed (which
reminds one of the Roman constitution) to put a premium
on the father of a growing family, and to grant to every
housekeeper, " the father of three children in the country,"
all the privileges of suffrage."' At this time Jefferson was a
member of the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, but,
on hearing that Virginia was about to draft a constitution,
he prepared a plan of government which was sent imme-
diately to Williamsburg. It arrived too late to be used,
as the convention had already agreed upon the constitution.
But no preamble having been adopted, the preamble to
Jefferson's plan was immediately affixed to the new consti-
tution, and adopted along with it on the 29th day of June,
1776, just five days before the Continental Congress adopted
Jefferson's Declaration of Independence."
indirectly by the qualified voters; and (2) the unincorporated
towns, where the affairs were managed by Trustees. A house or
lot in towns of either class entitled one to vote in the elections in
the county in which the town was located.
""Madison's Works, vol. i. p. 24. Mason proposed that the voters
should elect the lower house of the General Assembly, and should
also elect a body of electors who should choose the senators. A
similar plan was afterwards advocated by Jefferson, and it is in-
teresting to note that this plan of an electoral college which
Virginians were wise enough to reject, afterwards became the basis
of our present system of electing the Presidents of the United
States.
" It is very interesting to compare the Preamble of the Constitu-
tion of 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, and to see how
Jefferson embodied in the Declaration of Independence some of
the same thoughts (often in the same words) which are to be
found in the Preamble to the Constitution of Virginia.
287] Suffrage before 1830. 17
With reference to suffrage, Jefferson's proposed plan of
government favored the extension of the electoral franchise
to all free white men over twenty-one years of age who
had paid " scot and lot " for two years preceding the elec-
tion at which they offered to vote/' The constitution as
adopted, however, simply declared that suffrage should
remain unchanged ;^^ i. c, it remained as it had been estab-
lished by the law of 1736 for the counties and towns, and
by the respective charters of the city of Williamsburg and
the borough of Norfolk.
In 1776, there was no active party in favor of the exten-
sion of suffrage, and no one, except Jefferson and Mason,
seems to have advocated any change whatever. Had Jef-
ferson been a member of the V^irginia Convention, the con-
stitution might have been different. In 1785, the General
Assembly extended the right to vote to all who had as much
as fifty acres (instead of one hundred) of uncultivated land,
but in other respects made no change.^* In other words,
the Assembly adopted a measure similar to the acts of 1762
and 1769 which had been rejected by the King. Suffrage
remained, as fixed by the statute of 1785, until the adoption
of a new constitution in 1830.
This, in brief, is the history of suffrage from 1619 to
1830, so far as concerns the elections of members to the
General Assembly, and, after 1788, members of Congress
and Presidential Electors.
The city of Williamsburg and the borough of Norfolk
were peculiar anomalies. As has been seen, both of these
" Ford's Writings of Jefferson, vol. ii, p. 14.
^ Va. Constitution, Hening, vol. i, p. 52. Under the constitution
the State remained practically as aristocratic in its government as
it had been under the government of England. The electors still
voted simply for members of the General Assembly, but the old
Council as a legislative body was superseded by the Senate, and
the members of this newly established branch were elected by
popular vote. No voice was given to the people in their local
government. This was left in the hands of the Governor, who was
elected by the General Assembly^ " Hening, vol. xii, p. 120.
20
18 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [288
places had special privileges of suffrage which, however,
had reference to elections held within their charter limits,
yet a freeholder of Norfolk who had voted in the election
in the city could, also, because of his freehold in the city,
vote in the elections in Xorfolk county, and a freeholder of
the city of Williamsburg had the same privileges with refer-
ence to the county of James City.
Up to 185 1 every citizen had the right to vote in every
county in which he had a freehold, but a citizen was never
allowed to have two votes for the same freehold, except in
the cases of Norfolk and Williamsburg. This anomaly
existed because W'illiamsburg and Norfolk were granted
by their charters the privilege of sending one delegate each
to the General Assembly at the time when the suffrage laws
allowed freeholders in a town the privilege of voting in the
county in which that town was located. This was not alto-
gether agreeable to the people of Virginia. An act passed
in 1787 stated that, if at any time thereafter any town might
receive the privilege of electing a delegate to the General
Assembly, the citizens of the said town were to be allowed
no vote in the county in which the town was located."
Thus, a freeholder in a town would be entitled to only one
vote, but the law expressly stated that W'illiamsburg and
the borough of Norfolk were not to be affected. In 1788,
when the General Assembly assigned one delegate to the
city of Richmond, it declared that the freeholders of Rich-
mond could not have a voice in the elections in Henrico
county." Not until after the adoption of the Constitution
of 1829-1830 and the passage of the election law of 1831,
were the freeholders of Williamsburg and the borough of
Norfolk deprived of their votes in the counties."
"* Hening. vol. xii, p. 643. "" Ibid., vol. xii. p. 722.
" Code (1849), p. 38. Williamsburg was deprived of its represen-
tation, and its citizens, with those of York and James City counties,
had one delegate. Norfolk city retained its delegate, but no voter
could exercise the franchise except in the city, hence could not
vote for the delegate from Norfolk county. Of course, those who
289] Suffrage before 1830. 19
Suffrage in Virginia in colonial days was indeed pecu-
liar. As has been shown, in the counties it was perfectly
uniform, while in Williamsburg and Norfolk there was an
electoral qualification different from the county qualifica-
tion. These qualifications applied to the elections of mem-
bers of the General Assembly and to Federal elections.
This lack of uniformity was due to the fact that the charters
of Williamsburg and of the borough of Norfolk were
granted in the reigns of George I and George II — a time
when it was an English principle to grant more liberal
rights to the inhabitants of a town than of a county. But,
remarkable to say, after the rejection of the British govern-
ment, the General Assembly, when it established towns,
often provided for special qualifications which were to be
required in those elections which referred to the affairs of
the towns.
In 1779, when Alexandria was incorporated, all free-
holders or housekeepers who had resided in the town for
twelve months were allowed to vote in municipal elections.
Charters with like provisions were granted to Winchester,
to Fredericksburg and to Staunton.'* In 1782, Richmond
was chartered. The franchise in municipal elections was
conferred upon every white citizen who had resided in the
city for three months and owned property, real or personal,
to the value of one hundred pounds. Non-resident free-
holders of the city were also given franchise in city elec-
tions.'" The charter of Petersburg^ was, as far as suffrage
was concerned, like that of Richmond. In 1788, when
Richmond was allowed a member in the House of Dele-
voted in Norfolk or Williamsburg because of any " visible " estate
of the value of 50 pounds (according to the act of 1818. $166.66), or
those who voted because they had served an apprenticeship of five
years and were housekeepers, had never had the right to vote in
the county elections. In other words, a premium had been put on
a freehold voter in Norfolk and Williamsburg, just as is the case
in the present constitution of Belgium.
^'^ Hening, vol. x, pp. 172, 440; (New Series) vol. ii, p. 335.
^' Hening, vol. xi, p. 45. *° Ibid., vol. xi, p. 383.
20 Tli^ History of Suffrage in Virginia. [290
gates, only freeholders were allowed to vote for the repre-
sentative, who had to be a freeholder.*' Towns known as
" unincorporated towns " had trustees named in the acts
of establishment, and vacancies among such trustees were
filled, sometimes by vote of the freeholders and house-
keepers, and sometimes by the vote of the freeholders only.*""
Some towns were established without any mention of the
suffrage qualification for town elections. By an act of
1819 it was provided that in this case freeholders only, just
as in the general elections, were to be given the franchise."
Thus we see that Alexandria. Fredericksburg. Winches-
ter and Staunton had one system, that Richmond and
Petersburg had another, and that the " unincorporated
towns " had still another. Other instances might be given,
but those already cited are sufificient to show the confused
state of sufifrage. Nearly every town had a distinct quali-
fication for its municipal electors, while those who were
municipal electors were not entitled to vote in the general
elections, unless freeholders, except in Williamsburg and
Norfolk.
Before 1830 the franchise granted for town elections was
more liberal than for the general elections. By the consti-
tution of 1830, the qualifications for the general elections
having been somewhat reduced, the differences were not
so glaring, except in Richmond and Petersburg, where the
franchise for general elections was more liberal than for
municipal elections. In 1850. when suffrage was extended
to all male whites over twenty-one years of age. the re-
strictions on suffrage in the municipal elections of Rich-
mond were beyond all reason; so. in 1852. the Richmond
charter was amended whereby suffrage became uniform in
the city, and all who voted in the general elections also
voted for tl>e citv officials."
" Hcning. vol. xii, p. 722.
"Ibid., vol. V. p. 119; vol. X, p. 236; Code fiSrg), vol. ii, p. 319.
"Code (1819), vol. ii, p. 319. " Ciiartcr of 1852. §8.
291] Suffrage before 1830. 21
In spite of the different changes and the pecuHar anoma-
lies of the electoral franchise, freehold suffrage, on the
whole, prevailed in Virginia up to 1830. The system re-
stricted very greatly the franchise, but yet there is good
evidence that it was more liberal and more democratic than
it had been in New England during the colonial period."'
Aliens easily became citizens,"'^ and freeholds could be ob-
tained by a small outlay.
The usual voting population numbered about six per
cent, of the whites;" but in some counties of the Common-
wealth, especially in the western part of the State where the
freeholds were small and a large per cent, of the inhabitants
were landowners, the voting population was often as great
as nine per cent, of the whites."' Under the present system
of free manhood suffrage, from fifteen to twenty per cent,
of the population can vote.*^ Though suffrage in Virginia
was more liberal than in New England in the colonial days;
yet. when compared with our modern democratic system.
*" Jameson: Nation, April 27, 1893; Lyon G. Tyler: William and
Mary Quarterly.
** In early days aliens became citizens of Virginia simply by
taking oaths of allegiance and of supremacy, and after 1705 by tak-
ing such oath as was used by the English Parliament. In 1783, it
was enacted that an alien became a citizen as soon as he took the
oath of allegiance to the commonwealth. If qualified with a freehold
he could vote, but to be elected to an office he must have been a
resident for at least two years and have intermarried with a Virginia
family, or have property worth more than 100 pounds. Hening.
vol. ii, pp. 289, 308. 339, 400, 447, 464; vol. iii. p. 434: vol. v, p. 58;
vol. xi, p. 323; vol. xii, p. 267.
"Jameson: Nation, April 27. 1893. In the presidential election
of 1800 the contest was hot between Jefferson and Adams. The
total vote was .27.335, and the white population was 514,280. which
shows that about 5^ per cent, of the white population voted.
(Enquirer, Nov. 21, 1800; Census, 1800.)
'* See election returns in Enquirer, May 11, 1813, and compare
with the Census of 1810.
*° Documents of Convention, 1867-68, Document 16, p. 122.
In 1892, the vote cast in Virginia was 292,146, and the census of
1890 shows a population of 1.665,980 (Dispatch. Nov. 23, 1892, and
Census of 1890).
22 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [292
it was restricted to an aristocracy. Only about one in four,
or at most one in three, of the free white men of Virginia
was a landowner; therefore, as many as three-fourths or
two-thirds of the freemen of the State were disfranchised.
It does not seem that the Virginians of 1776 understood
the meaning of their famous Declaration of Rights which
declared that " all men are by nature equally free and inde-
pendent," and they undoubtedly believed that no man could
give " evidence of permanent common interest with, and
attachment to, the community " unless he owned real estate.
The economic conditions then existing in the State explain
this belief.
CHAPTER II.
STRUGGLE FOR THE EXTENSION OF
SUFFRAGE.
In colonial days freemen who were deprived of the suf-
frage were constantly clamoring for the privilege. This
statement is proven by the reports of the contested elections
going as far back as 1744. In nearly every case the illegal
votes which were thrown out in the settlement of the con-
test had been cast by non-freeholders. In some counties
the people practically made laws to regulate their own suf-
frage. In such counties where the pressure was sufiticiently
great, the sheriffs were accustomed to allow the franchise
to non-freeholders, provided no objection was raised by
the candidates.^ Surely this statement proves that there
was a strong democratic tendency in the colony of Virginia
in favor of the extension of suffrage. Nathaniel Bacon,
Virginia's first rebel, was also Virginia's first champion of
the rights of freemen. One century later, we find Vir-
ginia's great democrat, Thomas Jefferson, playing the same
role. In 1783, appeared the book of " Notes on Virginia,"
in which Mr. Jefiferson argued that freehold suffrage was
entirely contrary to the principles of the free government.
He asserted that the majority of the people who paid the
taxes and fought for the State had no voice in its govern-
ment, that the roll of freeholders who could vote did not
contain half of the freemen assessed for taxes, or enrolled
' See contested election cases of John Tabb vs. Wm. Wager,
Elizabeth City (Journal, 1776, April 8). In this election, 10 non-
freeholders had been allowed to vote. In the case of Blagrove vs.
Pettus, Lunenburg county, out of a vote of 372, forty-two freemen
had voted (Journal, March 12, 1772).
24 Tin: History of Suffrage in Virginia. [294
in the militia of tlie State. Jefferson pleaded for a
constitutional convention which should establish in Virginia
a democratic form of government. He prepared a draft of
a constitution in which the suffrage clause proposed that
all freemen who hatl been residents in Virginia one year,
who possessed a small amount of property, real or per-
sonal, or who were enrolled in the militia, should have the
right of suffrage.' Acting on Mr. Jefferson's suggestion,
in 1784, James Madison urged the General Assembly to
provide for the calling of a constitutional convention, and,
among other matters of imi)ortance, he mentioned that the
bad state of suffrage should be rectified.' This movement
failed and we hear little more of suffrage until the beginning
of the 19th century. In 1802, William Munford.* a promi-
nent State Senator, addressed a circular letter to his con-
stituents advocating the extension of suffrage to all white
freemen. The " Gazette " was a strong Federalist paper
which was opposed to anything which savored of Jeffer-
sonianism. It claimed that Munford's proposition was
nothing more than a move on the part of the Republican
party, headed by Jefferson, to make sure of retaining the
reins of government in their own hands. In other words,
that here was a conspiracy to extend suffrage to all free-
men with the hope that they would always express their
gratitude by supporting the party which had given them
the privilege.' The theories of Mr. Munford were regarded
as " visionary." However, through the efforts of Mr. Mun-
' Notes on Va. (ed. 1801), p. 408. This was his second draft of a
constitution.
' Madison's Works, vol. i. p. 83.
* This was William Munford, of Mecklenburg county. He was
the translator of Homer, and for a long time clerk of the House of
Delegates. William Munford was a prominent lawyer, a noted
orator, and at one time a member of the Executive Council of
Virginia. His circular letter was addressed to the citizens a{
Mecklenburg. Lunenburg, Brunswick and Grccnesville (Enquirer.
Feb. I, 1806; Gazette. Feb. 2;;^, 1803; Recorder, March 6. 1802).
* Gazette. Feb. 23, and July 20. 1803.
295] Struggle for the Extension of Suffrage. 25
ford, a bill was introduced in the General Assembly of
1802-3, providing that a constitutional convention should
meet, one object of which would be the extension of suffrage
to all freemen. This measure met with little support and
was defeated by a large majority. A letter published at
this time in the " Alexandria Advertiser " shows the spirit
of those opposed to a wider franchise. In speaking of the
extension of suffrage, it said: " Such has been the folly
and weakness of the people of [Maryland that they have
carried the right of suffrage so far, that their very wheel-
barrow men may be carried to vote by an habeas corpus,
and afterwards returned to their daily employment imposed
on them for some felonious act. Great God! is it possible
that a State can exist long under such a government? We
have to bless ourselves in Virginia that the right of suffrage
has saved us in some degree from the calamity of democ-
racy, alias mobocracy. I am well informed that the Legis-
lature of Maryland would disgrace any country; the mem-
bers of their Assembly, Senate and Council are neither
men of education nor common sense, scarce one capable of
draughting a law. What has been the consequence of
such characters getting into the Assembly? Why. they
have expelled worth and talent, and the people of Maryland
have submitted to men elected by free negroes, wheel-
barrow men, etc. Can it be expected that men of worth
and talents would mix or keep company with such a set of
men, elected by such a crew? " '
In quoting this article the " Gazette " warned the people
of Virginia to profit by the conditions in Maryland and to
beware of the visionary ideas of Mr. Munford. The desire
for reform in Virginia continued to grow, and for several
years we find the newspapers discussing questions of re-
form; among them, the extension of suffrage and the re-
apportionment of representation were the most prominent.'
" Quoted in Va. Gazette, July 20. 1803. This is a much overdrawn
account of the state of affairs in Maryland.
' Enquirer, Dec. 29, 1804, has an excellent article signed " C."
26 Th-c History of Suffrage in Virginia. [296
In 1806, when the convention question was again brought
up in the Legislature, the extension of suffrage was warmly
advocated. It was argued that it was a shame to the
Commonwealth of Virginia that nine-tenths of the freemen
were deprived of suffrage." One member went so far as to
declare that men thus deprived of their rights were " as
much enslaved as beings who inhabit the Turkish Empire.
If they enjoy more personal liberty it is because their
masters are more indulgent and not that they are less abso-
lute." ° It was asserted that the Bill of Rights was violated
when men who owned slaves, horses and other personal
property, subject to taxation, were refused the privilege
of suffrage, though they were as much interested in the
community as those owning real estate. Many of them
were patriots who had fought and bled for their country,
and yet they were not interested in their country because
they did not own land. Still the Legislature refused to act,
and public sentiment had to grow.
Universal suffrage became a subject for public debate
and for all newspaper discussion. The young men of the
country were its advocates, so Madison tells us. In judg-
ing from the reports of William and Mary College, at that
time Virginia's great school of politics, universal suffrage
was a favorite theme for the young orators of the country.'"
This appeal for liberty and democracy on the part of the
students of William and Mary reminds one of the outbreak
in 1848 at the universities of Germany, an outbreak which
fostered and cherished the idea of German liberty and
nationality.
In 1810 came two appeals to the Legislature. The little
"This was too high, as only two-thirds of the freemen were de-
prived of suffrage.
' Enquirer, Jan. 28, 1806.
"At the commencement of 1808. universal suffrage was advocated
by one of the graduates, William Grecnhill (Enquirer, July 15, 1808),
and again at the commencement of 1812, the same principle was
urged (Enquirer, July 14, 1812).
297] Struggle for the Extension of Suffrage. 27
town of Waterford in Loudoun county desired to elect its
officers by the vote of all the housekeepers in the town
instead of by the vote of freeholders, as was required."
A petition was also presented to the Legislature from Ac-
comac county, asking that steps be taken at once to extend
suffrage and to procure other needed reforms. This was
the day of Napoleonic despotism in France, and a kind of
conservative spirit prevailed in all parts of the English and
American world. James Monroe, who had been a repre-
sentative of the American Government in France at the
opening of the French Revolution, was at this time a mem-
ber of the Virginia Assembly. He had seen the evils of
universal suffrage in France, and so strenuously opposed
any action on the part of the Legislature that the petitions
were rejected by a large majority.^'
The inequality of representation was the burning ques-
tion at that time, but the extension of suffrage was always
warmly advocated. Again, in 1814, another bill for con-
stitutional reform was rejected." The equalization of rep-
resentation and the extension of suffrage now became the
cry of reformers throughout the State. In the summer of
1816 conventions were held at Winchester and at Staunton
to discuss questions of reform. The meeting at Staunton
was attended by some of the ablest men in the State.
Thirty-six counties were represented, twenty-four of which
were west of the Blue Ridge and twelve to the east of that
ridge.
"Jour, of House of Delegates, Dec. 20, i8ro. In this connection
attention is called to the special privileges enjoyed in Williams-
burg and Norfolk. Supra, p. 19.
'" Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 150. Monroe afterwards changed
his mind, and said that it might be expected that universal suf-
frage would not be a success in France, where the people had been
oppressed for ages, but that in Virginia, where the people were
accustomed to representative government, no evil could come of
universal sufifrage.
"Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 421. Bill provided for (i) exten-
sion of suffrage, (2), reapportionment of representation, and (3)
reduction of number of members in the House of Delegates.
28 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [298
At this time a great fight was being waged between
Western and Eastern Virginia for the reapportionment of
representation in the General Assembly, due to the fact
that in proportion to the white population Eastern Virginia
had twice as much power in the State government as it
should have. 'Y\\<^ Staunton Convention was therefore
called primarily to discuss representation. But as a rule
Western Virginians and those in the East who believed
in equalizing representation, also believed in free manhood
suffrage; so the Staunton Convention declared in favor of
(i) apportioning the members of the General Assembly on
the basis of the free white population and (2) for the ex-
tension of suffrage to all persons giving sufficient evidence
of a " permanent common interest with, and attachment to,
the community." The memorial prepared by this Staunton
meeting was referred to the General Assembly, but, again,
the reforms asked for were denied. It is well to remember,
however, that in February, 1817, a bill to call a constitu-
tional convention to equalize representation and to extend
suffrage passed the House of Delegates but was rejected
by the Senate.'*
For about seven years no decided effort was made to call
a constitutional convention, but the newspapers in nearly
every issue during this period had an article advocating
reform of some kind in the government. Frequently the
suffrage was the subject of discussion." In some parts of
'*Jour. of House of Delegates (1816-17), p. 180; Enquirer, Jan.
14 and 25. 1817. The bill followed the wording of the niemorial,
and passed the House of Delegates by the vote of 79 to 72>- A
majority of those voting for it were from the western part of the
State, but some of the eastern members supported it from the
desire to change the suffrage, which was as bad as the feudal system
which during the Dark Ages " confirmed all the powers to the
barcms." So the Virginia government granted all the power to
freeholders, and was an oligarchy.
"The Plnquirer, of Dec. 4, 1824. has a fine article on the question.
The argument was that the whole government of Virginia was in
the hands of a minority, and that people were often taxed without
being allowed any voice in the government. The article proposed
299] Struggle for the Extension of Sutfrage. 29
the country the desire for its extension was so great that
candidates for the General Assembly, by a common agree-
ment, allowed freemen to vote in the elections, and the
sherifif recorded their votes unless challenged by the can-
didates." In 1824, Jefferson, an old man in retirement at
Monticello, gave his views upon the subject of the suffrage.
He said: "The basis of our constitution is in opposition
to the principle of equal political rights, refusing to all but
freeholders any participation in the right of self-govern-
ment." According to Jefferson, the exclusion of the ma-
jority of the freemen from voting was arbitrary and " a
usurpation of the minority over the majority." " At the
session of the General Assembly of 1824-5 a convention bill
was again introduced. It passed the House of Delegates
by a vote of 105 to 98 but was rejected in the Senate by
13 to II.'' As in all previous convention bills, one of the
reforms desired was the extension of suffrage.
The action of the General Assembly aroused the people
in favor of reform to still more vigorous action. A great
meeting was called at Staunton in July, 1825. One hun-
dred delegates appeared, some of the most distinguished
men of the State. They were encouraged by nearly all of
the leading papers of the State, which said that reform in
the government was absolutely necessary. They discussed
the inequity of representation, and the injustice of free-
hold suffrage, and petitioned the General Assembly to call
a constitutional convention at once to redress these eriev-
to allow every white man to vote for members of the House of
Delegates, while only freeholders could vote for senators.
'" Enquirer, Feb. 14, 1822.
" Jefferson's Letter, Enquirer, April 27, 1824.
" Enquirer, Feb. 10, 1825. The editor in commenting on the re-
jection said: "Things cannot always remain as they are. The
people will correct them. They will call in yet louder tones for a
convention. The present constitution is defective and requires
amendment. Such is the language of justice and prudence." The
action of the Virginia Senate reminds one of the English House of
Lords in its opposition to the Reform Bill of 1832.
30 The History of S it /T rage in Virginia. [300
ances. Still again the General Assembly declined to call
a convention."
For three more years the fight went on with the same
result; but, finally, in January, 1828, a bill was passed by
the General Assembly to submit to voters of Virginia the
question of a convention to reform the constitution."" For
over twenty-five years the struggle for reform had been
waged. During this time the State had gradually divided
itself into two sections having in many respects conflicting
interests. There was the slave-holding planter in Eastern
\'irginia and the sturdy mountaineer in Western Virginia.
Under the constitution of 1776 Eastern Virginia rightly
and justly had the control of the administration; l)ut. as the
western section increased in population, it received no ad-
ditional powers in the government. For these additional
rights it clamored unceasingly for twenty-five years. The
East, however, opposed any change. The western princi-
ples of government called for representation based on free
manhood suffrage, wliilc the eastern principles demanded a
representative system based on man and property com-
bined, and a freehold suffrage. A constitutional conven-
tion could not be called unless a General Assembly ap-
proved of it, and, since the eastern section of the State had
a large majority in the Legislature, it is plain why it took
so long to produce a sentiment strong enough to make the
eastern members yield to the cry for reform. Some never
did, while others consented to call a convention in order
to secure many needed reforms other than the change of
representation or the extension of sufifrage. Still, when
the convention question was submitted to the vote of the
people, more than half of the votes in the East declared
against the convention, but the almost unanimous vote of
the West, together with a small vote of the East, carried
the dav for the reform convention.
"Va. Convention, 1829-30, p. 82.
"Acts of General Assembly, 1827-28. p. 18.
CHAPTER III.
THE DISCUSSION OVER SUFFRAGE IN THE
CONVENTION OF 1829-30.
The Convention assembled in the Capitol at Richmond,
October 5, 1829. Its ninety-six members were among the
most prominent men of the State, and many of them had
a national reputation. It is probable that there has never
been in the United States a State constitutional convention
in which there was so much talent. There were two Ex-
Presidents, Madison and Monroe; the Chief Justice of the
United States, Marshall; several who were or had been
United States Senators, and many who during their lives
were members of Congress, or held other posts of honor.
This convention has always been regarded as one of the
greatest assemblies of intellect ever held on Virginia soil.^
Next to representation, suffrage was the most important
subject of discussion. The Legislative Committee, of which
Mr. Madison was chairman, reported on the question of
suffrage.' While the reapportionment of representation
was for the most part a grievance, for the redress of which
the West only clamored, an extension of suffrage, though
most strongly advocated by the West, was likewise de-
sired by many in the eastern part of the State. There was
a strong sentiment in the city of Richmond for its exten-
sion, and, at the very commencement of the convention,
Chief-Justice Marshall presented a " memorial from a nu-
merous and respectable body of citizens, the non-freehold-
' For a fuller account of this convention see Chandler's " Rep-
resentation in Virginia," J. H. U. Studies, 14th Series.
' Va. Convention (1829-30), pp. 22, 39, 40.
32 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [302
ers of the City of Richmond." ' This niomorial is a very
long one and sets forth an argument why they should be
allowed the rights of suflrage. They claimed that they
were passed by as " aliens or slaves, as if they were desti-
tute of interest or unworthy of a voice in measures involv-
ing their future political destiny; whilst the freeholders,
sole possessors under the existing Constitution of the elec-
tive franchise, have, upon the strength of that possession
alone, asserted and maintained in themselves the exclusive
power of new-modelling the fundamental laws of the State;
in other words, have seized upon the sovereign authority."
They appealed to the Bill of Rights, and cited Jefferson as
having been a champion of their cause. They denied the
assertion that freehold suffrage was a fair criterion by
which to judge of merit, but, on the other hand, asserted
that it shut out from the affairs of the government some of
the most intelligent and meritorious men, whose vocations
required no ownership of property. With indignation they
had heard that they were too ignorant and vicious to vote;
yet in the time of war they had always been called upon to
defend the country, and at that time the militia were com-
posed of a large per cent, of non-freeholders. Mr. Mercer
presented a memorial to the same effect from a " highly
respectable body of citizens in Fairfax county," * and Mr.
Anderson another from the non-freeholders of Shenandoah
county." These were referred to the Legislative Commit-
tee, on the motion of Chief-Justice Marshall, who said that
" however the gentlemen might differ in opinion on the
question discussed in the memorials, he was sure they must
all feel that the subject was one of the deepest interest and
well entitled to the most serious attention of this body." "
Other memorials were also presented to the convention
asking fo'r an extension of the right of suffrage.'
* Va. Convention (1829-30). pp. 26, 27.
* Va. Convention (1829-30). p. 31.
' Ibid., p. 32. ' Ibid., p. 32. ' Ibid., p. 32.
303] Discussion over Suffrage, 1829-^0. 33
The Legislative Committee broug-ht in a lengthy report
on suffrage which advised that all who then enjoyed the
right to vote should continue to exercise that privilege,
and that suffrage should be extended to those who pos-
sessed freeholds of the value of $ ; to those who owned
vested estates in fee, in remainder, or in reversion worth
$ ; to leaseholders paying an annual rate of $ ; and
to taxpaying housekeepers.' The blanks were to be filled
by the convention. As soon as the report was taken up
for discussion, it became evident that it was not satisfactory
to any of the members. Yet the members were so divided
in sentiment that it was also seen that no better plan was
likely to be adopted. Many resolutions were offered bear-
ing on suffrage. General Robert Taylor of Norfolk pre-
sented resolutions in favor of uniform suffrage throughout
the State." His idea was to abolish any differences which
might exist between the usual regulations governing suf-
frage and the special charter privileges granted to many
of the towns. At the same time he desired that a definite
regulation should be adopted which would apply through-
out the State. Mr. Fitzhugh of Fairfax desired to simplify
the regulations governing suffrage by allowing all free-
holders, or householders, having any assessed property
(real or personal) of some specified value, the elective fran-
chise.'" Mr. Alexander Campbell, President of Bethany
College, proposed to extend the right of suffrage to " all
free white males of twenty-three years of age, born within
the Commonwealth and resident therein," " while any one
not born in the State could acquire the right of suffrage by
* Ibid., pp. 39-40.
' Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 39. Gen. Taylor was not in accord
with his constituents, and afterwards resigned his seat in the con-
vention for that reason.
" Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 42.
" Ibid., p. 43. The term " free white " is to be distinguished
from white population, because there were many whites in the State
at that time bound for a term of years, and they were not regarded
as " free."
21
34 The History of Suffrage in J'irginia. [304
a declaration m court of his intention to become a resident
of the State. Another proposition was that suffrage be
granted to every free white man of the Commonwealth who
had resided therein for one year previous to the election,
provided he had paid all levies or taxes imposed according
to law. A poll-tax of twenty-five cents per annum was to
be levied on all white men, and the revenue thus acquired,
with an equal amount from the property tax, was to be set
aside for " the education of the youth of Virginia." "
The most heated discussion of the convention was on
representation, but the second most interesting was on
suffrage. The men from the western part of the State were
anxious for free manhood suffrage, while those from the
eastern part were more conservative and cared for very
little change in the electoral qualifications. James Monroe
declared that he was willing in the extension of suffrage to
go as far as the most liberal could desire." Benjamin Wat-
kins Leigh, on the other hand, declared against extension
of suffrage, claiming that it would grant too much liberty,
and the result would be the liberty of Virginia expiring
with excess. In this connection he made use of the follow-
ing eloquent language: " It has pleased Heaven to ordain
that man shall enjoy no good without alloy. Its greatest
bounties are not blessings, unless the enjoyment of them
be tempered with moderation. Liberty is only a means;
the end is happiness. It is indeed the wine of life; but like
other wines, it must be used with temperance in order to
be used with advantage; taken to excess, it first intoxicates,
then maddens, and at last destroys." " John Randolph of
Roanoke declared that it was an outrage to the freeholders
even to extend suffrage to the housekeepers and to free
men over twenty-one years of age. Addressing the Presi-
dent of the Convention, he said: "Sir, I demand as a
" Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 44.
" Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 150. Monroe explained that he
had changed his views since 1810, when he had so earnestly opposed
the extension of suffrage.
" Ibid., p. 173.
305] Discussion over Suffrage, 182Q-SO. 35
freeholder, in behalf of freeholders on what plea you put
them and them only under the ban of this Convention. . . .
I will never consent to deprive freeholders of their rights,
... I will never consent to be an agent in this." " The
western people quoted Jefferson as a great advocate of
manhood suffrage and said that the government of Virginia
was not entitled to the name of a republic. Jefferson had
said: " We find no republicanism in our Constitution, but
merely in the spirit of our people; but the spirit of our
people would oblige even a despot to govern us republi-
canly. Owing to this spirit and to nothing in the form of
our Constitution, all things have gone well." The western
people thought that these conditions ought to be removed
and that the people ought to be trusted to govern them-
selves, but the sage of IMonticello had little weight with
the Eastern Virginians, especially with those of the type of
John Randolph. They practically said, " Let things stay
as they are. We are getting on well. Let good enough
alone." Randolph said: " Such is the wisdom of our ex-
isting form of government that no proposition can be
brought forward with a view to making an inroad that can
demand a respectable majority. The lust of innovation
has been the death of all republics. All men of sense ought
to guard and warn their neighbors against it." Randolph
proposed at one time that the Convention should adjourn
sine die and give up all intention of changing the constitu-
tion of 1776^" as it was the best the world had ever seen.
The way in which Jefferson's views were regarded by the
East is seen by another extract from Randolph. In reply-
ing to a western member, he said: "We are not to be
struck down by the authority of Mr. Jefferson. Sir, if
there be any point on which the authority of Mr. Jefferson
might be considered as valid, it is in the mechanism of a
plough. He once mathematically and geometrically dem-
onstrated the form of a mould board which might present
Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 346.
Ibid., pp. 557, 571. 572, 716.
36 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [30G
the least resistance. His mould board was sent to Paris.
It was exhibited to all the visitors in the garden of plants
and was declared una voce — the best mould board that had
ever been devised. Sometime after, an adversary brought
into Virginia the Carey plough, but it was such an awkward
looking thing that it would not sell. At length some one
tried it, and, though its mould board was not the one of
least resistance, it beat Mr. Jefferson's plough as much as
common sense will always beat theory and reveries." This
was indeed the feeling of the Eastern Virginian. He be-
lieved that democracy was a theory, and that only men of
property should be given the franchise. At this time there
were in Virginia some 100,000 free white citizens paying
taxes to the State, of whom about 40,000 were freeholders
and 60,000 were men who owned personal property." The
western members made a desperate effort to have suffrage
extended to all taxpayers, but the proposition was rejected
by the eastern members. The East had sixty members in
the Convention, and the West, thirty-six; and, when the
vote was taken to extend suffrage even to taxpayers, only
a few of the eastern men failed to oppose it. This measure
was rejected by a vote of fifty-three to thirty-seven." Had
this proposition been carried, 43,000 white men over
twenty-one years of age would still have been disfranchised,
because they paid no taxes on any personal proi)erty. So
we see that the western scheme which came nearest to
passing would have enfranchised only 100,000 out of 143,-
000 male whites over twenty-one years of age. At this
time Virginia was the only State in the Union out of
twenty-four that held exclusively to the freehold suffrage."
The advocates of UTiivcrsal suffrage stood no chance with
men who believed that landed property was the basis of the
State and of wealth, and that, if the wealth of a State is
jeopardized, the State will be tlirDwn intii ciinfusion. The
" Va. Convention, p. 355. Tlic luinibcr of free white males over
21 years of age was 143.000.
" Va. Convention (1829-30), pp. 350, 383.
'• Ibid., p. 356.
307] Discussion over Suffrage, i82g-jo. 37
property of the State must be protected and this can be
done only by property quahfications being required of every
voter. A proposition was even offered to disfranchise
some of the freeholders who already could vote because of
fifty acres of unimproved land.'" It was claimed that many
of these small freeholds in West Virginia, of fifty acres of
unimproved land were worth, in the mountainous districts,
only a few cents and that a specified valuation should be
fixed upon the freehold which would qualify a man to
vote. The sentiment of the convention, however, was not
in favor of disqualifying any who could already vote. The
eastern men who controlled the convention practically said,
those who could vote ought to continue to exercise the
privilege, and that suffrage ought likewise to be extended
to all persons having small freeholds with specified value,
whether they were two, three, four or five acres, and to
leaseholders and taxpaying housekeepers, but there was
such a diversity of opinion as to what valuation should be
required, that a deal of wrangling occurred before a plan
could be agreed upon." The following botch of a plan
was finally adopted and embodied in the constitution : "^
"" Ibid., pp. 349, 346.
" Va. Convention (1829-30). Mr. Wilson, of Monongalia, pro-
posed the extension of suffrage to all taxpayers (p. 350). Benjamin
Watkins Leigh did not desire to extend suffrage beyond lease-
holders, and desired to keep the franchise from the hands of the
housekeepers. This was defeated by a vote of 51 to 37 (pp. 393,
432). There were in Virginia at this time about 30,000 men who
paid a revenue tax, but were not freeholders. Doddridge pro-
posed that the suffrage be extended to these, but the motion was
rejected by a vote of 48 to 44 (p. 441). This close vote shows that
there was a pretty strong desire to give a voice in the government
to all who paid a revenue tax. They were the western men rein-
forced by about a dozen of the eastern members. The ultra eastern
men tried to prevent the extension of suffrage to leaseholders, but
lost by a vote of 68 to 28 (p. 638) They also tried to exclude from
the electorate housekeepers who were assessed for the revenues of
the State, and had actually paid taxes. This motion was also lost,
the vote standing 56 to 40 (p. 641).
*' Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 900. By this constitutional pro-
vision we find the following qualifications for voters: (i) A 25-acre
freehold of improved land acquired before 1830; (2) a 50-acre free-
38 The History of Sttffragc in Virginia. [308
" Every white male citizen of the Commonwealth, resi-
dent therein, aged twenty-one years and upwards, being
c|ualified to exercise the Right of Suffrage according to
the former Constitution and laws; and every such citizen,
being possessed, or whose tenant for years, at will or at
sufferance, is possessed, of an estate of freehold in land
of the value of twenty-five dollars, and so assessed to be
if any assessment thereof be required by law; and every
such citizen, being possessed, as tenant in common, joint
tenant or parcener, of an interest in or share of land, and
having an estate of freehold therein, such interest or share
being of the value of twenty-five dollars, and so assessed
to be if any assessment thereof be required by law; and
every such citizen being entitled to a reversion or vested
remainder in fee, expectant on an estate for life or lives,
in land of the value of fifty dollars, and so assessed to be
if any assessment be required by law (each and every such
citizen, unless his title shall have come to him by descent,
devise, marriage or marriage settlement, having been so
possessed or entitled for six months); and every such citi-
zen, who shall own and be himself in actual occupation of
a leasehold estate, with the evidence of title recorded two
months before he shall offer to vote, of a term originally
not less than five years, of the annual value or rent of
twenty dollars; and every such citizen, who for twelve
months next preceding has been a housekeeper and head
of a family within his county, city, town, borough or elec-
tion district where he may offer to vote, and shall have
been assessed with a part of the revenue of the Common-
wealth within the preceding year, and actually paid the
same — and no other persons — shall be qualified to vote for
members of the General Assembly in the county, city, town
hold of unimproved land acquired before 1830; (3) a $25 freehold;
(4) a $25 joint tenantship; (5) a $50 reversion; (6) a five-year lease-
hold of annual rental value of $20; (7) a tax-paying housekeeper,
being the licad of a family.
309] Discussion over Suffrage, 182^-^0. 39
or borough, respectively, wherein such land shall lie, or
such housekeeper and head of a family shall live. And in
case of two or more tenants in common, joint tenants or
parceners, in possession, reversion or remainder, having
interest in land, the value whereof shall be insufficient to
entitle them all to vote, they shall together have as many
votes as the value of the land shall entitle them to: and the
Legislature shall by law provide the mode in which their
vote or votes shall in such case be given: Provided, never-
theless, That the right of Suffrage shall not be exercised by
any person of unsound mind, or who shall be a pauper, or
a non-commissioned officer, soldier, seaman or marine, in
the service of the United States, or by any person convicted
of any infamous offence."
With such a clause regulating suffrage well might Ran-
dolph have claimed that the convention was not capable
of amending the Constitution of 1776 and that their work
would not stand for more than twenty years " (a true
prophecy). The work of this convention is a clear demon-
stration of the fact that it is not always the greatest states-
men and the most distinguished men who are capable of
forming general principles upon which government should
be based. As a rule the most successful statesman is the
one who performs specific acts. Of such eminent states-
men this convention was composed. Jefferson was a states-
man of a different kind. In dealing with a specific case he
often failed, but in forming general principles he was the
greatest master America has ever produced. Though the
convention had agreed upon constitutional regulations for
suffrage which the greatest constitutional lawyers, Chief-
Justice Marshall not excepted, could not interpret, some-
thing had really been accomplished towards extending suf-
frage. The granting of suffrage to leaseholders, and house-
keepers who had paid taxes, was some advance from the
freehold system towards a democracy. Just to what extent
^ Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 790.
40 Tiw History of Suffrage in Virginia. [310
the electorate had been increased it is difficult to determine.
In 1828 the vote on the convention question was 38,780."
All these were, of course, freeholders. The new constitution
by a special provision was submitted for its ratification to all
who would be qualified to vote under the new constitution
and the vote cast was only 41,618." This was probably not
a full vote, but on the basis of these two elections we are
justified in saying that suffrag^e had not been extended
very liberally; and that, while under the old constitution
two-thirds of the free white men over twenty-one years of
age could not vote," that now at best not more than half
of the freemen could exercise that privilege.
** Va. Convention (1829-30), p. 379.
" Ibid., p. 903.
^ Ibid., p. 379. The total number of freemen over 21 years of age
was 143,000, from which about 10,000 ought to be deducted as
paupers, and, if we suppose that 20,000 voters failed to exercise the
right, we are still justified in our conclusion.
CHAPTER IV.
STEPS TO FREE MANHOOD SUFFRAGE.
The convention of 1829-30 had been a failure in so far as
reform was concerned. Virginia's great men had shown
their incompetency to frame a constitution which would be
lasting. The inequality and inequity of representation had
been only partially removed, and no constitutional basis
for future reapportionment had been established. Suffrage
had been extended to but half of the freemen. Many other
reforms, such as we now think are the very essentials of a
democracy, had likewise been rejected, such as voting by
ballot, election of governors by the people and the election
of all local officers by the people of the district. Eastern
Virginia members believed in a deep-dyed aristocracy, and
Eastern Virginia ruled the State.
But to return to suffrage, the interpretation of the clause
regulating suffrage as embodied in the new constitution
was very doubtful. In the General Assembly of 1831-32,
there was quite a number of contested election cases, and
in trying to determine the legal and illegal votes, the House
found in many cases that it was almost impossible to decide.
Often the Committee on Elections reported that certain
votes were illegal, and the House would reverse the deci-
sion, and vice versa. The clause on suffrage in the con-
stitution was so badly stated, that the House appointed a
special committee with authority to prepare an explanatory
bill.^ The problem was too knotty for the committee, and
^Journal of House of Delegates (1831-32), p. 58, and Document
No. 13. For instance, the right of suffrage was granted a man
owning an interest in any estate, provided his interest was assessed
at $25, if the assessment was required by law. Such a case was
found, but no assessment had been made. It was finally decided
that such a vote was illegal (Journal of 1838, p. 55).
42 Tlw History of Suffrage in Virginia. [312
after much debate it was decided to leave the matter as it
was, thus necessitating that all future General Assemblies,
as best they could, would have to interpret the constitution.
Truly, it was a bad state of affairs when we remember that
in one year after the adoption of the new constitution, the
General Assembly found itself unable to explain the con-
stitutional provisions regulating suffrage.
Before 1830 elections had taken place at the county court
houses on court days, which meant that elections in some
counties were at one time and in others at still another time.
After the adoption of the new constitution it was provided
that the elections should be held in all parts of the State on
the same day. Before 1830 a man voted in as many coun-
ties as he had freeholds, and, as election days were different,
it was very easy for him to cast his vote wherever he held
real estate. It was expected that by having a specified time
for elections throughout the State, that double, treble and
sometimes quadruple voting would be prevented, but yet
we are told that many men were accustomed between 1830
and 1850 to vote in two or three counties by voting in the
morning in one county, at noon in another and late in the
afternoon in still another. The writer knows of a man
who, in a very heated campaign, voted in Caroline, Spot-
sylvania, Stafford and Orange by riding and driving rapidly
from one precinct to another. In the newspapers, about
1840, we find some considerable complaint of this double
voting. It was believed to be in opposition to the spirit
of the constitution.* By double and treble voting, the towns
could control the counties around them. Many citizens of
the towns would buy freeholds worth $25.00 in the adjoin-
ing counties. They would vote in the towns in which they
resided and then hurry into the counties to vote. Rich-
mond * CQuld control the delegates from Hanover, Henrico,
' Enquirer, May 15, 1840.
' Enquirer, April 27, 1841. Cold Harbor was the place at which
the Richmond voters concentrated to control the elections in
Hanover. It was said that a tract of land known as " Sydnor's
313] Steps to Free Manhood Suifrage. 43
and Chesterfield. Fredericksburg could control those of
Spotsylvania and Stafford; Alexandria, those from Fairfax;
and Norfolk City, those in Norfolk and Princess Anne
counties.
By 1842 anotlier constitutional convention for reform
was advocated. As usual, Western Virginia led in the move-
ment. The Legislature at the session of 1841-42 had failed
to reapportion representation throughout the State.* Ac-
cording to the census of 1840, the West had a white popu-
lation of 371,570 and the East a white population of 369,390,
yet a House of Delegates of 134 members was distributed
so unequally, that the West had only fifty-six, while the East
had seventy-eight members. So the desire for a consti-
tutional convention on the part of the West was primarily to
reform representation, but at this time meetings ' were
being held in many parts of Western Virginia, asking for a
complete change in the consti'iution so that representation
might be properly reapportioned, and also asserting that
the governor and all State officials and county officials
ought to be elected by the people, and that the right of
suffrage ought to be extended to every white man over
twenty-one years of age. Even the people of the eastern
part of the State, belonging to both the Democratic and
the Whig parties, began to realize the undemocratic system
of suffrage, and some advocated a convention to cut off
double voting, to make it impossible for a man to vote
except in the district where he resided. Some eastern
people actually began to believe that it would be a good
thing to have free manhood suffrage.* The " Enquirer "
took up the western cry, advocating many reforms and
especially a change in suffrage. This newspaper, though
the leading organ of Eastern Virginia, asserted that no one
understood the constitutional right of suffrage, that no two
lawyers would agree about it, that no two Legislatures had
Tract " was divided into at least twenty-five small freeholds owned
by Richmond voters. * Enquirer, Aug. 19, 1842.
" Enquirer, Dec. 5, 1844. " Enquirer, Dec. 7, 1844.
44 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [Sl-i
decided, or would decide, in the same way, questions re-
ferred to them concerning the suffrage, and that in some
counties one construction was put upon the constitution,
and in others, still another. Because of these difficulties
much fraud and deception were being practiced in the
elections.' In the newspapers of the day many articles were
written trying to explain who could and who could not
vote.* One writer asserted that "the constitutional pro-
vision regulating the right of suffrage has no prototype in
any institution of civil government that the world ever saw.
No one can understand it." Complaint was also made that
there was a system of manufacturing votes for party pur-
poses in vogue in many parts of the State." In an important
election in Hampshire county, we are told that 295 such
voters were made. All of these men contracted for small
freeholds before the election, paid no money on them and
gave them up after the election. This system of manu-
facturing votes, together with the difficulty of interpreting
the constitution, made doubtful from five to ten per cent,
' Enquirer, July 22, 1845.
' Enquirer, April 25, 1843. The most knotty question to decide
was what was meant in the constitution by a housekeeper who was
assessed a part of the taxes being allowed to vote. A man who
kept a tavern, for instance, was a housekeeper, and paid a license,
bu* was this an assessment? Some claimed that those who were
housekeepers and paid a license were entitled to vote, but the
decision of the General Assembly in contested elections was that
an assessment was a tax on property, while a license was a tax
on a privilege.
' Enquirer, Sept. 30. 1845. According to a decision of the House
of Delegates in 1838, a man could vote in virtue of a freehold
which he had bought on time, provided that the man from whom
he had purchased it, certified that it was a botta fide sale (Journal,
1838, p. 57). This, of course, made it possible for unscrupulous per-
sons to make a great number of votes for party purposes. It was
also possible for a man to take a lease for five years, two months
before an election, for such estate as he was then occupying, and, if
the anxiual rent was $20, he could vote because of it. After the
election he could then be relieved of his lease. There were other
ways, too, but these instances are enough to show how badly the
constitution was framed.
315] Steps to Free Manhood Suffrage. 45
of the votes cast at every election/" Many contests, there-
fore, ensued, and much valuable time was consumed by the
Legislature in discussing and deciding these contests.
With such a state of affairs, it was but natural that a
sentiment began to grow in Eastern Virginia in favor of a
change in suffrage, while opposed to a change in repre-
sentation. Many of the Eastern Virginians advocated free
manhood suffrage because it was the only system, as they
claimed, capable of getting the people out of the tangle
into which the Constitution of 1830 had ensnared them.
There was great need of a constitution in which the right
of suffrage would be so plainly described that no misun-
derstanding could possibly arise.'' Nothing but free white
manhood suffrage would suit the conditions. The people
of Hanover and Henrico counties were much disturbed
over the system of double voting. The citizens of Rich-
mond were accustomed to vote in these counties because
they had deeds in their pockets for land which they had
never seen." In many parts of the State public meetings
were held denouncing the existing conditions and advocat-
ing free manhood suffrage.
By 1846 every observant politician became aware of the
fact that another constitutional convention was near, and
that the East would be willing to accept universal manhood
suffrage." The great question which concerned the eastern
politician was how to hold a convention and regulate suf-
frage and not to produce a great deal of trouble over repre-
sentation. For three years no action was taken with refer-
ence to calling a convention.
In 1849 the people all over the State, and especially those
of the East, demanded that the Legislature should submit
to the vote of the people the question of calling a consti-
'"Jour. of H. of Del.. 1831, Doc. No. 13; Journal, 1838, p. 70;
Journal, 1845-46, Doc. 19. and Doc. 42; Jour., 1844-45, Doc. 27 and
Doc. 52.
" Enquirer, Oct. 10, 11, 1845. '" Enquirer, June 2, 1846.
" Enquirer, Dec. 15, 1846, Report of H. of Delegates.
46 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [316
tutional convention. The eastern people said that it was
absolutely necessary to settle the question of suffrage, if
nothing else,'* and Governor Floyd in his message to the
General Assembly advised a convention at once to regu-
late suffrage." He said that the then existing system was
a most glaring wrong and that Virginia, the home of
democracy, ought to have a democratic franchise, namely:
white manhood suffrage. In February, 1850, the General
Assembly passed a bill to take the vote of the people for
or against a convention." Examination of the discussion
which took place concerning the bill shows that those
principles of reform which had been advocated by the
western members of the Convention of 1829-1830, namely:
the election of State and county ofificers by the vote of the
people and the extension of suffrage to all male whites over
twenty-one years of age, were now approved of by most
of the members from the East; but the East was not
willing to concede a convention organized on tiie basis of
the white population, neither was it willing that a conven-
tion should be called with the intention of equalizing repre-
sentation. The West, while anxious for other reforms,
wanted first of all to have representation equalized for two
reasons: (i) because to it the inequality of representa-
tion was the most glaring evil of our government, and (2)
because if the convention should adopt all of the reforms
for which the West had previously stood, excepting the
equalization of representation, it would never be possible
to bring about a reform in representation. Since the East
was unwilling to grant the white basis to the West, the
members from that section were, for the most part, opposed
to the convention. The state of affairs was now peculiar.
The western people who had first of all desired a con-
vention vpted against the measure, while the eastern mem-
bers voted for it, still some of the western members were
'* Enquirer. Dec. 4. 1840.
'"Governor's Message: Jour, of House of Delegates.
" Enquirer, Feb. 12, 19. 1850.
317] Steps to Free Manhood Suffrage. 47
willing to have a convention in spite of the fact that their
basis of representation was not acknowledged in the organi-
zation of the convention/'
In April, 1850, the convention bill was submitted to the
vote of the people, and, though many reforms were pro-
posed and needed, all of which reforms the West believed
in, twenty-nine out of the forty-three counties west of the
Alleghany Mountains cast large majorities against the con-
vention, because representation based on white population
was not an acknowledged reform which the convention
should make. All of the western counties between the
Blue Ridge and the Alleghany, and all of the eastern coun-
ties except two, gave majorities for the convention bill,
which in spite of the opposition of the trans-Alleghany
counties, was ratified by a large majority."
In August the election of members to the convention
was to take place; so, between April and August of 1850,
the newspapers were filled with discussions of what the
convention should accomplish. The following reforms
were proposed: (i) biennial sessions of the Legislature,
(2) election of the governor by the people, (3) election for
limited terms of all judges, (4) reapportionment of repre-
sentation, (5) free manhood suffrage, (6) taxation ad
valorem, (7) restriction of the power of the Legislature to
increase the State debt, (8) establishment of a public school
system, and (9) the election of county of^cers by the
people." In nearly every newspaper was a letter from
some one announcing his candidacy for a seat in the con-
vention, and, on all of the proposed or demanded reforms,
a large majority of the candidates declared their views.
" For a fuller account see my paper on Representation (J. H. U.
Studies, 14th Series); also examine Enquirer, Dec. 21, 1849; Jan.
22, Feb. 12. 19, 26; March i, 8, 15, 1850. When we consider the
history of the State, it looks pecuHar to see the West opposing a
convention. This would not have been but for the fact that it was
believed that the East intended to force upon the West the mixed
basis of representation.
" See Returns of Vote in State Papers of 1850.
" Enquirer, March 20, 1850.
48 Till' History of Suffrage in Virginia. [318
Six of the nine proposed reforms, as a rule, were accepted;
but many were opposed to the election of judges by the
people, while the views on representation were many and
varied. On a whole the people in Eastern Virginia favored
the mixed basis, while those in the West favored the white
basis. Only one Eastern Virginian announced that he
favored the white basis. This was Henry A. Wise of
Accomac, and he was called a modern Jack Cade and a
traitor. With reference to suffrage all the candidates in
the West and most of those in the East expressed them-
selves in favor of white manhood suffrage. Some of the
eastern men, however, wanted to get back to the old
freehold system ^" as it had existed before 1830, while one
or two expressed themselves in favor of an educational
qualification;" yet a majority of the i)eoi)le of the State
had undoubtedly made up their minds in favor of the
extension of suffrage to all free whites over twenty-one
years of age." So at last, nearly twenty-five years after
the death of Jefferson, the people of \^irginia had come to
accept his principle of suffrage, a principle which as early
as 1776 he had advocated and which it took seventy-five
years for Virginia to accept. The \''irginia people were
very conservative, and, though claiming to be democratic,
were still aristocratic. And it is yet a moot question
in \'irginia whether, after all, the old Virginia democratic
aristocracy was not right, and that the best and safest
government is that which gives the suffrage to an enlight-
ened property-holding class.
^ VVhip^, June 7, July 30, 1850. The Whig advocated referring to
the people the question of suffrage, and to allow them to decide
between a freeliold suffrage, or free manhood suffrage. The editor
preferred tlie freehold system.
" Whig, June 21, 1850. The plan was to establish a public school
system and to require every voter to read and write. The assertion
was made that there was more ignorance in Virginia than in any
other State.
" Enquirer, April 18, 1850; Whig, May 31 ; June 4, 7. 2\ : July 4,
9, 16, 17. 19, 23, 30; August 6, 1850.
CHAPTER V.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSAL WHITE
SUFFRAGE.
The members of the constitutional convention assembled
in Richmond, October 14, 1850. Of the 135 members, six
had been members of the convention of 1829-30. The con-
vention was organized by electing John Y. Mason as presi-
dent. After a session of a few days it adjourned to await
the census of 1850 which at that time had not been made
public. It reassembled on the 6th of January, 1851, and
remained in session until August ist. This convention is
known in Virginia history as the " Reform Convention,"
because it overthrew the aristocratic principles on which
the government of Virginia had previously been organized.
The battle in this assembly was over the question of the
basis of representation, and the debate which took place
upon this subject consumed most of the time and atten-
tion of the convention." Over this question the convention
came near splitting. The western counties spoke of sepa-
ration and the organization of a new State west of the
Alleghany. The Eastern Virginians were likewise so de-
termined on their principle of representation, that in many
sections there was a feeling in favor of the division of the
State. After many severe encounters, some of the Eastern
Virginia members surrendered to the West, and adopted a
compromise basis of representation. Those members from
the East who voted for this compromise were branded by
the other eastern members as base " Judeans " and " vile
* For a full account of the proceedings of the convention on the
question of representation, see my paper on " Representation in
Virginia " (J. H. U. Studies, 14th Series).
2.2
50 The History of Suffrage in rirgi)iia. [320
traitors."' The compromise basis which was so distasteful
to the East was the recognition, to a certain extent, that
every voter should have the same voice in the State govern-
ineut. The House of Delegates was apportioned on the
white basis, and the West received a majority of the mem-
bers. The mixed basis, however, was recognized in the
apportionment of the members for the Senate, so that in
this body the East had a majority.
Next to representation, the question of suffrage was the
most important, and this created a lively and interesting
debate. From the beginning it was evident that suffrage
would be greatly extended, but to just what extent it was
not certain. As usual, the motion for its extension came
from the West. Mr. Waitman T. Willey offered a resolu-
tion that suffrage should be extended to every free white
man of the age of twenty-one and upwards. ° The question
of suffrage was then referred to a special committee which
reported February 4, 185 1.' As made, the report advo-
cated allowing the franchise to every male white over
twenty-one years of age, provided he had been a resident
of the State for two years, and of the county or town or
city where he offered to vote, for one year, but no person
in the United States naval or military service, because he
was stationed in the State, no pauper, no idiot, no insane
person, no person having been convicted of an infamous
crime or of bribery in elections, or of voting fraudulently,
and no naturalized citizen of the United States who had
not taken the oath of allegiance to the State, was to be
given the franchise in Virginia.* A substitute was offered
that only freeholders whose property was worth at least
$25.00, and residents who had been assessed with a part of
'Journal of Convention, 1850-51. P- 46. Mr. Willey died only
recently at a very old age. He was probablj' the longest survivor
of the members of this convention.
•Journal of the Convention, p. 58. The committee consisted of
sixteen, of whom Joseph Johnson, afterwards governor, was the
chairman. * Debates of Va. Reform Convention, p. 109.
321] Establishment of Universal White Suffrage. 51
the revenues of the Commonwealth or levies of the county
for one year preceding the election and had actually paid
these assessments, should be granted the franchise.' On
the other hand, the proposition was made to accept the
report of the committee on suffrage with two exceptions:
(i) that the residence of two years in the State be reduced
to one, and (2) that a man be required to pay his taxes
before election day." These propositions were rejected, and
the report of the committee was adopted July i6th without
change.' There are no reports of the debates on the suf-
frage question in any of the newspapers, and no printed
volumes of the debates have been found except one which
closed May i, and, since the suffrage report was not
taken up until May 30, it is impossible to get any idea of
the feeling which existed with reference to suffrage; but
we have every reason to believe, because of the silence of
the newspapers and because of the fact that the journal of
the convention does not record the ayes and noes, that the
new system of franchise was almost unanimously adopted.
The journal simply stated that the report of the committee
on suffrage was adopted. It is marvelous how, in the
period of twenty years, the sentiment of the people had
become so changed that suffrage could be extended to all
male whites without newspaper comment or even a call for
the ayes and noes in the convention. Just twenty years
before, when such a proposition as universal manhood
suffrage was proposed in Virginia's famous convention, the
great political leaders of the State had denounced the move-
ment as the first step to anarchy and ruin.
The embodiment of universal suffrage in the new con-
stitution left Richmond in a peculiar condition. Under the
charter of Richmond, no man who did not have property,
" Ibid., p. 254. ' Ibid., p. 272.
'Journal of Convention, pp. 126, 236, 237, 309, 312-316. Many
propositions were rejected, but the feeling which desired the pay-
ment of taxes before exercising the right of suffrage came near
prevailing.
52 The History of Suffrage in I'irginia. [322
cither real or personal, worth one hundred pounds, could
vote for city officials. As soon as the citizens of Richmond
saw that the new basis of suffrage was to be adopted, they
petitioned to the convention that suffrage should be made
uniform throughout the State, so that men, residing in
Richmond qualified to vote in federal and State elections,
would also be electors in city elections." The convention,
however, declined this petition ' on the ground that the
charter of Richmond had been granted by the General
Assembly and that it fell to the General Assembly to amend
the charter, so that all male whites residing in Richmond
might have a voice in the city government. After the
adoption of the new constitution, in 1852, the first General
Assembly, elected under the new government, remodeled
the charter of Richmond,'" and suffrage then became the
same throughout the State for all elections, whether federal.
State or municipal. The suffrage clause, as embodied in
the constitution, which was ratified by the people in Octo-
ber, 1 85 1, was simply as follows: " Every white male citi-
zen of the Commonwealth of the age of twenty-one, who
has been a resident of the State for two years, of the county,
city or town where he offers to vote, for twelve months
next preceding an election — and no other person — , shall
be qualified to vote for members of the General Assembly
and all other officers elected by the people; but no person
in the military, naval or marine service of the United States
shall be deemed a resident of the State, by reason of being
stationed therein. And no person shall have the right to
vote who is of unsound mind, or a pauper, or a non-com-
missioned officer, soldier, seaman or marine in the service
of the United States, or who has been convicted of bribery
in an election, or of any infamous offense." "
" Whig. July 25. 1851.
• Whig. Aug. I, 1851. John Minor Botts moved that tlie redress
be granted, but his motion was defeated by a vote of 58 to 37.
" Supra, p. 20.
"Constitution of 1851; Documents of 1851, p. ,y) The new
constitution was adopted by a large majority, and was submitted.
323] Establishment of Universal White Suffrage. 53
This was a great improvement upon the Constitution of
1829-30. It was simple and direct and left no doubt as to
who was qualified to vote. No longer could it be said that
no two of our best- constitutional lawyers could agree on
the suffrage clause of the constitution. No longer would
the sessions of the General Assembly be wasted in trying
to decide contested elections which would never have oc-
curred had the constitution been so framed that it could be
interpreted by any man of moderate intelligence. The new-
constitution had extended suffrage more than sixty per
cent.^' In 1851 the vote for governor was 110,000, and by
the census of 1850 the white population was 895,867, so
that at this time about thirteen per cent, of the people had
voted; whereas before the extension of suffrage, at best,
only about eight or ten per cent, of the people enjoyed the
suffrage.
The convention of 1850-51 did far more towards reform
than the people of the East had desired. On the question
of representation it had yielded to the demands of the West.
It had adopted nearly all of the reforms which had been
advocated by the West even to the election of the judges
by the people. Virginia had come up to this convention as
an aristocratic government, but the new constitution made
it one of the most democratic States of the Union. The
State had only eight years in which to try its new form of
government, a period hardly long enough to justify any
conclusions as to how a broad, unrestricted democracy
would succeed ; and since these years were a period of great
political strife in the affairs of the nation, little time could
be given to a consideration of the internal conditions of
as was the constitution of 1830, to those qualified, according to the
new constitution, to be voters. The reforms accomplished were:
(i) A more equitable apportionment of representation; (2) extension
of suffrage; (3) election of governor and judges by the people;
(4) a better system for taxation, and (5) election of all local ofificers
by the people.
" Whig, Dec. 23, 1851, and Documents in Appendix to the
Journal of the Convention of 1850-51.
54 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [324
the State. So we find very little complaint of the new form
of government. The chief grievances which seemed to
have concerned some of the leading politicians grew out
of the fact that influential and wealthy planters often intimi-
dated the poor whites, who were thus forced to exercise
the franchise as ordered. The system of voting was still
what it had been in 1619, viva voce. As yet a Virginian did
not believe in the secret ballot. There was no longer any
double or treble voting, as a man could only vote in the
district where he resided. On the whole, we have every
reason to believe that the new system of suffrage was
satisfactory, and it is only to be regretted that it could not
have been tried longer, but the cruel pqwer which tears
down governments and works revolutions came upon the
State. Civil War forced Virginia from the Union; soon
slavery was abolished; Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV
were added to the Constitution of the United States, and
the question no longer turned on free white manhood
suffrage, but resolved itself into a problem of universal
suffrage which was not to be limited by " race, color, or
previous condition of servitude."
CHAPTER VI.
THE "UNDERWOOD CONSTITUTION."
The great questions of State government having been
settled by the new constitution, and Virginia having be-
come a democracy, the people of the State turned their at-
tention to the all-absorbing questions of national politics —
secession and slavery. Those persons in Eastern Virginia
who were known as the " poor whites," having received the
right of suffrage, though often intimidated by the influ-
ential planters, were true to the State, which is shown by
the fact that, when the Civil War came on, they were
willing to sacrifice their lives for Southern principles. The
agitation of slavery throughout the country soon brought
on the crisis in the nation which resulted in secession. In
February, 1861, a convention met at Richmond which, after
vain efiforts to reconcile the North and the South, finally
passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 81 to 51.'
The section west of the Alleghany Mountains opposed
secession, and organized a government to act in concert
with the Union, and called it the Government of Virginia.
Francis H. Pierpont was made governor. A constitutional
convention was called, and a constitution for West Vir-
ginia adopted, February 18, 1862.' Then in May, 1862, a
Legislature met at Wheeling, claiming to be the Legislature
of Virginia, though composed entirely of men from the
' Code of Va. (1873), PP. 2, 8.
^ For a full account of this, with references, see my paper on
Representation in Virginia (J. H. U. Studies, 14th Series), ch. vii.
The West Virginia Constitution adopted the same suffrage quali-
fications as the Virginia Constitution of 1851. Poore: Fed. &
State Consts., vol. ii, p. 1979.
56 The History of Suffrage i}i Virginia. [326
trans-Alleghany counties (about one-third of the counties
of the State), and passed a bill giving the consent of the
State of Virginia to the formation of this new State." By
a proclamation of the President of the United States issued
the 19th day of April, 1863, West Virginia was to become
a part of the Union in sixty days after this proclamation/
The Pierpont Government, having accomplished the dis-
memberment of Virginia, was, in 1863, transferred from
Wheeling to Alexandria. The General Assembly held at
Alexandria passed a bill calling for a convention to frame
a constitution for the remaining portion of Virginia. A
convention accordingly assembled at Alexandria, February
13, 1864. Very few counties were represented, l)ut a con-
stitution was adopted.'* This was never submitted to the
people for ratification.
By this constitution, slavery, or involimtary servitude,
was abolished in the State of \"irginia. Suffrage remained
the same as had been established by the constitution of
1851; but no man could vote unless he had paid all taxes
for which he had been assessed." All persons were likewise
disfranchised who, since the first of January, 1864, had
aided or abetted the " rebellion " then in progress. The
right, however, was granted to the Legislature to remove
the disabilities of those thus disfranchised. At the close
of the Civil War, President Johnson by proclamation recog-
nized the Alexandria Government as the legal government
of the State, and the Alexandria Constitution as Virginia's
constitution. Governor Pierpont then moved his govern-
ment to Richmond; and there, on June 19, 1865, a General
' Code of Va. (1873), p. 14. Under the Constitution of U. S. it
was necessary that the Legislature of Va. should give consent to
the formation of a new State out of its territory (U. S. Const.,
art. iv, sect. 3, cl. i); hence we see one-third of tlic State claiming
to be the whole State.
' Code of Va. (1873), p. 15. An act for the admission of West
Virginia had passed Congress, Dec. 31, 1862.
'Code of Va. (1873). p. 18.
° Poore: Fed. and State Consts., vol. ii. p- 1939.
327] The " Underwood Constitution" 57
Assembly, which was a fairly representative body, met.
The governor sent in a message asking that an act be
passed to allow him the right to submit to the vote of the
people the question of the Legislature being granted the
power of amending Art. Ill of the constitution, the article
which related to suffrage. Pierpont held that this ought
to be done because the disfranchising clause in the consti-
tution prevented more than ninety per cent, of the whites
from voting. He believed that the Virginians who had
been in the " rebellion " had erred through misjudgment,
and should not be regarded as traitors; and that by all
means they should have a voice in the State government,
as they paid nearly all of the taxes of the State.' This
request was embodied into an act which passed June 21,
1865; and, when submitted to the people in the fall of 1865,
it was approved at the same time that a new General Assem-
bly was elected.* In carrying out the provisions of this act
the Legislature granted suffrage to all male whites over
twenty-one years of age who had paid taxes to the State.
Not a word was said about any one who had taken part in
the Civil War, and no man was disfranchised because of
any part in that war.' The members of the Legislature,
however, were not yet satisfied with the constitution. It
was claimed that the constitution under which they were
living had been hatched in a " cock-loft " in Alexandria, and
had been forced upon them at the bayonet; so several at-
tempts were made to call a constitutional convention to
frame a new constitution for the State." After much de-
bate, it was decided to drop the matter, as it would be
inexpedient for the State to undertake to make a new
constitution while the Congress of the United States was
still hostile to the South. At this time the XlVth amend-
ment to the Constitution of the United States was sub-
' Enquirer, Dec. i, 1865; Journal of H. of Del., 1866-67. p. 2.
'Acts, 1865-66, p. 197- " Il^'d., p. 226.
'"Journal of House of Delegates, 1865-66, p. 444; Journal, 1866-67,
pp. 25, 152.
58 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [328
niitted. Pierpont was a much wiser man than the people
of X'irginia are wilHng to acknowledg-e. He had in a high
handed way been the moving spirit in separating West
Virginia from the State. He had raised 25,000 troops for
the Union army, and, consequently, was regarded by the
Eastern \'irginians as a traitor. Yet, as we see him at this
time, we cannot but believe that he was a conscientious
man, and, having at heart the Union, he forgot for a time
his native State; but, when President Johnson acknowl-
edged him as the real governor of the State, he seems to
have taken a deep interest in building up Virginia and
desired to overlook the fact that any citizen had borne
arms against the Union. When the XlVth amendment
was submitted by Congress to the States for ratification,
Pierpont saw the temper of the Federal Congress, and in
his message to the Virginia Legislature he advised that
the State should ratify at once." He said that the State
should become at once a constituent part of the United
States, and that its voice should again be heard in the halls
of the Federal Congress, that Virginia's example would
probably be followed by the other Southern States, and
that these States, once in the Union, could prevent any
oppressive legislation which Congress might afterwards
desire to enact. He said that the absolute control of
suffrage would then be in the hands of the States, and with
the South once more represented in Congress, it would be
impossible for the Federal Government to enforce negro
suffrage. In other words, Pierpont saw that the rejection
of the XlVth amendment by the Southern States would
only incense Congress, and finally result in still another
amendment which would establish negro suffrage. If Pier-
pont's advice could have been followed, we might never
have had. the XVth amendment with the many evil results
which have followed from it. The Legislature, however.
"Journal of House of Delegates, 1866-67, PP- 2-3; Document No.
I, p. 37; Enquirer, March 7, 1867.
329] The " Underwood Constitution.^' 59
refused to ratify the XlVth amendment." Only a few
months after Congress passed the two famous reconstruc-
tion acts (one of March 2, and the other of March 27,
1867), which made provision for the reorganization of the
governments of the Southern States." By these acts the
Virginia government, previously recognized by Johnson,
was disregarded, and Virginia was put under military rule.
General J. M. Schofield was made military commander in
Virginia, but Pierpont continued for a while to act as
governor under Schofield's directions. The military com-
mander, under the reconstruction acts, was instructed to
take, before September i, 1867, a registration of all persons
entitled to vote, that is of all male persons over twenty-one
years of age, white or colored, but all persons who had
held any military or civil office (no matter how insignificant)
under the United States, or in any State, and had taken
the oath of allegiance to the United States, and afterwards
had in any way aided the " rebellion " were disfranchised.
An election should then be held to take the sense of the
registered voters for calling a constitutional convention
and at the same time to elect delegates to the convention.
October 22, 1867, was appointed by General Schofield as
the date for the election. For the first time negroes voted
in Virginia. The elections were conducted by ballot, and
the negro votes were placed in one ballot box and the
white votes in another." By this means we are able to
ascertain the sentiment of the whites and the blacks. At
the election, 76,084 whites and 93,145 negroes voted. The
vote for the constitution was 107.342, of which number only
14,835 were whites. The vote against the convention was
61,887, of which only 638 were negroes." Thus we see
that the whites were violently opposed to the convention,
" Acts, 1866-67, pp. 508-509.
" See these acts in Documents of Convention, 1867-68, p. 8, et seq.
" Enquirer, Oct. 23, 1867. This was the first election ever held
by ballot in Virginia. The viva voce system had always prevailed.
" Documents of Convention (1867-68), pp. 52, 56.
GO The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [330
while the negroes were greatly in favor of it. The white
people were anxious to delay the reorganization of the
State because they believed that in a short time a reaction
would take place at the North — that the Democratic party
of the North would win in the elections and that the South
would be able to get better terms.
The convention assembled in Richmond, December 3,
1867. and remained in session until April 17, 1868. It was
composed of 105 members, of whom 81 were whites and
24 negroes. According to the parties there were 68 Radi-
cals or Republicans and ^7 Conservatives or Democrats.
Thirty-three members were non-natives of the State, per-
sons who had come to Virginia from the North immediately
after the Civil War and were known as " carpet-baggers."
The Radical party of 68 contained 14 white \'irginians
who were known as " scallawags." Putting it another way,
54 members of the convention were northern incomers and
negroes, who together formed a majority.'" The conven-
tion was thus controlled by an element foreign to the best
interests of the State, so the best people of Virginia have
alwavs been violent in their denunciation of the consti-
tution which it drafted. Judge J. C. Underwood, a native
of New York, a man thoroughly detested in X'irginia, was
made president of the convention; therefore, the constitu-
tion which was adopted has always been known as the
" Underwood Constitution."
The convention was organized by the appointment of
twenty standing conmiittees to report clauses for a consti-
tution. The committee on elective franchise, composed of
" Dispatch, April 10, 1868. Fourteen were from New York. A
native of New York was made president. A Marylandcr was made
secretary, and another sergcant-at-arms. An Irishman from the
North was made stenograpncr. and a native of New Jersey,
assistant clerk. The doorkeepers were negroes, and the chaplain
was from lUinois. All the pages, except one, were negroes or
sons of Northern men, and the clerks of the twenty standing com-
mittees, with a few exceptions, were negroes and Northern men.
Such a convention was necessarily distasteful to native Virginians.
331] The " Underwood Constitution" 61
eleven members, was one of the most important." Seven
of its members were Radicals and four were Conservatives.
Mr. Hunnicutt was chairman of this committee. As was
expected, the committee did not agree. The Radicals
brought in a majority report, and the Conservatives a
minority report.^* The majority report favored universal
suffrage for all males over twenty-one without limitations,
except that all persons who had been disfranchised under
the reconstruction acts should not be allowed the right of
suffrage in Virginia. Moreover, no man should be allowed
to be elected to oflfice who had in any way aided or engaged
in the " rebellion." The minority report advocated the
franchise being given to all male whites who had paid taxes
to the State for a year preceding the election. The debate
on these reports began on the 20th of February, 1868, and,
with more or less interruptions, lasted to the first of April.
It was evident to all that the Radicals would carry their
measure, but the Conservatives did all they could to worry
them. In the course of the debate many disagreeable things
were said by both the Conservatives and the Radicals. The
negroes were a very unruly element and gave offense to the
better class of the Radical party. A Conservative member,
Mr. Liggett, of Rockingham, became disgusted with the
whole procedure and so stated in the convention, and, on
refusing to vote when the ayes and noes were called, he
was expelled from the convention." The negroes would
have been glad to have disfranchised every white man in
the State, if it could have been done; and about one-third
of the Radical members from the North were in sympathy
with the negroes. General B. F. Butler visited Richmond
while the convention was in session, appeared before it,*"
and urged that all should be disfranchised who held promi-
" Enquirer, Dec. 11, 13, 1867.
"Documents of Convention, 1867-68, pp. 156, 193; Enquirer, Feb.
13. 1868.
" Enquirer, March 15, 1868. "" Enquirer, Jan. 15, 1868.
62 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [332
nent places in the coninuinity — such as presidents of banks
and of stock companies, etc. After five days of debate on
the minority report, it was rejected by a vote of 29 to 59."
In their argument for the minority report the Conservatives
claimed that there could be no doubt of the fact that this
was a " white man's country," and that their efYort to estab-
lish negro domination would eventually result in bloodshed
and riot. They claimed that JelYerson was a true prophet,
that he had said: " Nothing is more certainly written in
the book of Fate than that these people (negroes) are to be
free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free,
cannot live under the same government."" As the Con-
servatives saw it. there would be no use in trying to give
the two races equal rights in the same government. After
the rejection of the minority report, the Conservatives
tried in vain for a property (jualification; and then a propo-
sition for an educational qualification to take effect in 1875
also failed." After these failures the disgust of the Con-
servative element is pretty well shown by the motion of
Mr. E. Gibson: " No white man shall vote or be eligible to
any oflfice within this State." "
The spirit of the convention was decidedly against all
persons who had in any way engaged in war against the
Union. Hunnicutt declared that he was in favor of dis-
franchising 30,000 more in Virginia than had been dis-
franchised by the reconstruction acts," but Hine and Hawx-
hurst seemed to be most determined to persecute the whites
of the State. Hine moved that, in addition to those who
had been disfranchised, all persons who had held any posi-
tion in the army ranking above first lieutenant should be
excluded from the right of voting. This produced a divi-
sion in the Radical ranks. Only 32 of their number voted
" Enquirer, March 5. 1868. " Enquirer. Feb. 21. 1868.
" Enquirer, Jan. 22. 1868; Journal of Convention, 1867-68, p. 273.
''Journal of Convention, 1867-68, p. 227; Enquirer, March 7. 1868.
" Enquirer, March 4. 1868. This was desired in order that the
negro vote might control all elections.
333] The " Underivood Constitution." 63
for it. These were 22 negroes and 10 of the Northern in-
comers."' Mr. Hine then proposed to disfranchise all orig-
inal secessionists, i. e. persons who had voted for candidates
pledged to secession in 1861. This also received only 32
votes, as opposed to 51 against it." Hawxhurst then pro-
posed that no candidate for the secession convention, if he
had been pledged to secession, should vote.** With refer-
ence to the ironclad oath, the Radicals had no trouble in
embodying it in the constitution," though General Schofield
appeared in the convention and advised them to leave this
out. He also thought the disfranchising clause ought to
be omitted. He was hissed and called " King Schofield "
by the negroes.^' The constitution, as finally adopted by
the convention, contained the following clauses with refer-
ence to the elective franchise:"
" Art. Ill, Sec. i. Every male citizen of the United States,
twenty-one years old, who shall have been a resident of this State
for twelve months and of the county, city or town in which he
shall offer to vote, three months next preceding any election, shall
be entitled to vote upon all questions submitted to the people at
such election: Provided. That no officer, soldier, seaman, or
marine of the United States army or navy shall be considered a
resident of this State by reason of being stationed therein: And,
Provided also. That the following persons shall be excluded from
voting:
1. Idiots and lunatics.
2. Persons convicted of bribery in any election, embezzlement of
public funds, treason or felony.
3. No person who, while a citizen of this State, has. since the
adoption of this Constitution, fought a duel with a deadly weapon,
sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with a deadly weapon,
ever within or beyond the boundaries of this State, or knowingly
conveyed a challenge or aided or assisted in any manner in fighting
a duel, shall be allowed to vote or hold any office of honor, profit,
or trust, under this Constitution.
4. ' Every person who has been a Senator or Representative in
Congress, or elector of President or Vice-President, or who held
^ Enquirer, March 25, 1868.
=" Ibid. "* Enquirer. March 27, 1868.
" Enquirer, March 24, 1868. The vote was 43 to 29.
'" Dispatch, April 18, 1868.
" Enquirer, April 20, 1868, and Code of Va. (1873).
64 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [334:
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any
State, who, having previously taken an oath as a Member of Con-
gress or as an officer of the United States, or as a member in any
State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer in any
State, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.' ''' This clause shall
include the following officers: Governor, lieutenant-governor, sec-
retary of the State, auditor of public accounts, second auditor,
register of the land office. State treasurer, attorney-general,
sheriffs, sergeants of the city or town, commissioner of the revenue,
county surveyors, constables, overseers of the poor, commissioner
of the board of public works, judges of the supreme court, judges
of the circuit court, judges of the court of hustings, justices of the
county courts: mayor, recorder, aldermen, councilmen of the city
or town: coroners, escheators: inspectors of tobacco, flour, etc.;
clerks of the supreme, district, circuit and county courts, and of
the court of hustings; and attorneys for the commonwealth:
Provided, That the Legislature may, by a vote of three-fifths of both
Houses remove the disabilities incurred by this clause from any
person included therein by a separate vote in each case." "
Section 7 of the following is the " ironclad " oath which
would have excluded all of the best citizens of the State
from any public office:
" Sec. 6. All persons, before entering upon the discharge of any
function as officers of this State, shall take and subscribe the fol-
lowing oath or affirmation:
' I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United
States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Virginia;
that I recognize and accept the civil and political equality of all
men before the law, and that I will faithfully perform the duty of
to the best of my ability. So help me God.'
Sec. 7. In addition to the foregoing oath of office, the governor,
lieutenant-governor, members of the General Assembly, secretary
of State, auditor of public accounts. State treasurer, attorney-gen-
eral, all persons elected to any convention to frame a constitution
for this State, or to change, alter, or amend or revise this con-
stitution in any manner, and mayor and council of any city or town,
shall before they enter on the duty of their respective offices, take
and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, provided, the
disabilities therein contained may be individually removed by a
three-fifths vote of the General Assembly:
"This is quoted from the reconstruction acts.
" This fourth clause is usually spoken of as the " disfranchising
clause."
335] The " Undcrzi'ood Constitution." 65
' I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily
borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen
thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel
or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto;
that I have never sought nor accepted, nor attempted to exercise
the function of any office whatever under any authority or pre-
tended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not
yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, author-
ity, power or constitution within the United States hostile or
inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the
best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic: that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'
The above oath shall also be taken by all city and county officers
before entering upon their duties, and by all other State officers not
included in the above provision."
These clauses were extremely offensive to the white peo-
ple of Virginia. The sentiment which then prevailed and
which now prevails to a great extent is shown by the follow-
ing extract from an editorial in the Enquirer : ^*
" The white men of Virginia mean to control the govern-
ment of this State, and they are determined not to allow
themselves to be governed by an inferior race, so lately
their illiterate slaves. They do not intend to prove them-
selves unworthy of their proud ancestry, nor permit the
priceless heritage of fame and glory which has been handed
down to them from their world-honored sires, now to be
dragged in the filth and mire by a mob of ignorant negroes,
led on by a handful of low adventurers the blackness of
whose hearts constitutes their only tie of fraternity with
their black-faced followers. This determination will be ad-
hered to as the son of Hamilcar kept his oath of hostility to
Rome." The Enquirer claimed that there was no feeling
of animosity towards the negroes, but that it was out of
the question to think that the white, intelligent race could
submit to be ruled by their former slaves.
** Enquirer, April 20, 1868.
23
66 The History of Suffrage in Virginia. [33G
The Conservative members of tlie convention were thor-
oughly incensed by the new constitution, and issued an
address to the people of Virginia, arraigning the constitu-
tional convention and its motives." They said that all the
taxes were placed upon the whites, that representation was
so apportioned as to give the negroes control of the Legis-
lature, that the idea was, if possible, to have mixed schools,
that property would not be safe, that the new county
system, as proposed, would wi)rk very seriously for the
whites, that by the " ironclad "' oath 999 out of every 1000
of the whites would be incapable of holding office, and that
the suffrage clause was an outrage.
The following extracts present the Conservative view of
the " Underwood Constitution."
" There is universal negro suffrage, without limitation.
except that the party shall be a male, of sound mind, twenty-
one years of age, who has not been convicted of crime,
and who has resided twelve months in the vState and three
months in the county where he proposes to vote. We
could not secure any educational or property qualification
whatever; not even the prepayment of taxes; not even the
prepayment of one dollar poll-tax. We could not even
persuade them to exclude paupers. But this universal suf-
frage was confined to negroes; all whites who ever held
any oflfice, civil or military, in the State including the large
list of county and municipal officers and who afterwards
participated in the ' rebellion,' are excluded not only from
ofifice, but from the elective franchise. The object of this
was to secure, as Mr. Botts expressed it. in an address
made before the Radical members of the convention, ' a
good working majority ' in the State, to give a decided
preponderance to the negroes in the Legislature as well
as in the county organization."
In connection with these views on suffrage, we may note
also what the Conservatives thought to be the prevailing
si)irit in the North:
*• Enquirer, April 20, 1868.
337] The '' Underwood Constitution." G7
" Every Northern State which has voted on the subject
since the close of the War has rejected negro suffrage.
Ohio, on a direct issue, no later than last fall, did so by a
majority exceeding 50,000. Kansas, Minnesota and Con-
necticut had previously done the same thing. The late
Constitutional Convention of New York deliberately re-
coiled from deciding the question. And Michigan, hitherto
so overwhelmingly Republican, has just voted down her
new Constitution by a majority of 30,000, because it ad-
mitted the negroes to the polls. The census shows that
there were only some 35,000 negroes in Ohio in i860.
There could have been only about 7000 negro voters in
that State, had they been enfranchised. In Michigan there
are only about 500 male negroes twenty-one years of age.
The white voters number more than 165,000. And yet this
State, where a Republican Governor was elected in 1866
by a majority of 29,038, refused by some 30,000 majority
to let 500 negroes vote."
The members who issued this address expressed no
hatred of the negroes, no feeling of animosity towards them,
acknowledged that they had behaved well during the war
and that they were entitled to thanks for their behavior.
The feeling, however, was intense against the Northern in-
comers and the native whites who hoped to gain power
through the negro vote. The Conservatives desired to
give the negro the protection of the law and to give him
employment, but, because the negroes belonged to an in-
ferior race, they did not believe that the two races could
have equal political rights and live in peace and harmony.
They believed that they were to have " unmitigated negro
rule " by means of the few whites in the Radical party.
They believed that the State government would be in the
hands of a group as mixed as that which composed the
convention.
The Conservative party proceeded to organize through-
out the State with the determination, if possible, to defeat
the new constitution which was to have been submitted to
C8 Tlu- History of Suffrage in Virginia. [338
the vote of the people on the 2iid of July, 1868; but on
account of the failure of the Federal Government to provide
means for holding the election, Scholield decided that the
election should not be held." In the fall of 1868 the
presidential election took place, and resulted in the election
of General Grant, who became President, March 4, 1869.
A milder feeling towards the South came to exist in official
circles in Washington. In \'irginia a split occurred in the
Radical party, one faction following H. H. Wells who had
succeeded Pierpont in 1868."' This faction was vigorous
in favoring the adoption of the " Underwood Constitution "
with its " disfranchising " clause and its " ironclad " oath.
The other faction was headed by Gilbert C. Walker and
declared its opposition to the " Underwood Constitution "
unless the '' disfranchising " clause and the " ironclad "
oath should be removed." The State officials were also to
be elected when the constitution was submitted. Wells
was the gubernatorial nominee of one faction, and Walker
of the other. The Conservatives also had in the field a
ticket. Such was the state of afYairs in April. 1869, when
a bill passed Congress providing that the " Underwnod
Constitution " should be submitted to the vote of the people
of Virginia.'* Because of the disaffection in the Radical
ranks and the opposition of the Conservatives, Congress
had every reason to believe that the " Underwood Constitu-
tion " would not be ratified by the vote of the people. So
the bill provided that the President should have discretion-
ary powers as to the time for holding the election, and that
he might, also, set aside such clauses of the constitution as
he might think should be voted on separately by the people
of Virginia.*" Early in May the Conservatives, on assur-
" Dispatch, April s, 1868.
" Enquirer, April 6, 7, 1868. Wells was from New York, and it
was claimed that Pierpont was removed because he was distrusted
on account of being a native of Virginia.
" Enquirer, March 26, 1869.
" Code of Va. (1873). P- 26. *" Code of Va. (1873). P- 26.
339] The " Undcrzuood Constitution." 69
ance that President Grant would probably set aside the 4th
clause of the first section of the third article of the consti-
tution (i. c. the " disfranchising clause "), and the 7th section
of the third article (/. c. the " ironclad " oath), withdrew
their candidates, and, though they made no declaration,
they threw their support to Gilbert C. Walker and his
ticket." Grant issued his proclamation on May 17, stating
that the election on the ratification of the constitution
should take place on the 6th of July, 1869, and, as expected,
set aside the two clauses to be voted on separately." The
"disfranchising clause" was rejected by a vote of 124,360
to 84,410, and the " ironclad " oath by a vote of 124,715 to
83,458, but the constitution was adopted by a vote of
210,585 to 9,136.^' So we see that the chief opposition to
the " Underwood Constitution " had been the suffrage
clauses.
With the " disfranchising clause " and the " ironclad "
oath removed, the Constitution of Virginia remained as
adopted by the " Underwood Convention." Under the
constitution, amendments could be added provided they
were introduced and carried through one Legislature, and,
after being approved by the next Legislature, they were
ratified by the vote of the people. In 1875, when the Legis-
lature was under the control of the Democrats, a bill was
passed to amend the constitution so that no man could
vote unless he had paid his capitation tax before the election
day. This was approved of by the next session of the
Legislature on February 22, 1876," and was ratified by the
vote of the people in November of the same year. The
amendment was carried by a majority of 31,014." This
" Enquirer, May 4, i86g.
"Code of Va. (1873), PP- 26-27; Enquirer, May 17. 1869.
*^ Code of Va. (1873), pp. 26-27.
**Acts, 1875-76, p. 83; Poore's Fed. and State Consts., vol. ii, p.
1975-
" Governor's Message: Journal of H. of Del., 1876-77. p. 22.
Suffrage was not the only thing changed. An amendment vi^as
carried to have biennial sessions of the General Assembly, and thus
to save much expense to be incurred by annual sessions.
70 The History of Suffrage i)i Virginia. [340
was aimed at the negro, as it was believed that he would
fail to pay his poll-tax as required." The scheme did not
work well. It gave an opportunity for fraud. Candidates
would frequently buy votes by paying the taxes; and, in
addition to the fraud, it often involved heavy expenses on
the candidates, as many men who had decided how they
would vote, would not pay their poll-taxes, and the candi-
dates and party organizations would have to pay for them.
This was a very expensive business.
In 1880 the so-called " Re-adjuster" party was in power,
They introduced a resolution in the Assembly to amend
the constitution by repealing the poll-tax clause.*' They
claimed that the whole thing was a scheme of the Demo-
crats by which many poor whites and negroes were dis-
franchised. The Democrats claimed that the " Readjust-
ers " were trying to appeal to the lower classes, and to
make votes by introducing the measure; still it was pretty
generally conceded that the revenues of the State had not
been increased to any appreciable extent by the poll-tax
prerequisite for voting and that a great deal of fraud had
come out of it.** The Legislature approved of the bill to
repeal the poll-tax clause. At the session of 1881-82 the
measure was again approved and submitted to the vote of
the people in November, 1882, and adopted by a large
majority. Many Democrats, as well as " Re-adjusters,"
seemed to have come to the conclusion that the best thing
to do was to get rid of the measure. The Dispatch, in an
editorial which very probably voiced the sentiment of the
leading politicians of the State, said: " So there will be no
money needed hereafter to pay capitation taxes in Virginia
as a means of increasing the vote of their party." " Since
1882 there has been no change in the suffrage.
*• Dispatch. Feb. 28, 1880.
"Dispatch, Feb. 27. 28. 1880; Acts, 1879-80, pp. 296-297.
"Message of Governor Cameron: Jour, of Senate, 1881-82,
p. 72: Dispatch, Jan. 15. 1882; Feb. 28. 1880; Nov. 21. 1882.
"Dispatcb. Nov. 14, 1882.
341] The " Undcnvood Constitution." 71
There has always been in Virginia a decided opposition
to the " Underwood Constitution," and for some time there
has been a strong sentiment for a constitutional convention.
At every session since 1874 resolutions have been offered
either to amend the constitution, or to take the vote of the
people on calling a constitutional convention/" A bill to
call a constitutional convention passed the House of Dele-
gates in 1878, but was postponed indefinitely by the Senate."
For about ten years the pubHc debt and the expenses of
the government were the all important questions, and,
in 1888, a bill passed the General Assembly to take the
voice of the people with reference to a convention."" This
was required by the " Underwood Constitution." At the
elections in November of that year the convention was
voted down.^^
During the last ten years the desire for a change in
suffrage has become evident to all observant persons, but
the question of how to change suffrage is far from being
solved. Some want an educational qualification, claiming
that no man ought to vote who has not a certain amount
of intelligence and that an educational qualification is the
best test for this. Then it is thought that the educational
qualification will disfranchise quite a number of negroes.
Others want a property qualification, believing that this
will disfranchise more negroes. Others would be glad to
see both the educational and property qualification, pro-
'" Journal of H. of Del., 1877-78, p. 261; 1879-80, p. 251; 1883-84,
pp. 26, 64, etc.; 1884 (extra session), p. 154; 1885-86, p. 213; 1887
(extra session), pp. 31, 32; 1888-89, p. 410; 1891-92, p. 379; 1893-94,
pp. 16, 208, etc.; 1895-96, pp. 204, 409; 1897-98, p. 693; 1899-1900,
pp. 39, 127, etc.
" Journal of H. of Del., 1877-78, pp. 391, 494, 508. The Dispatch
at this time declared against a convention and said that every
constitutional convention in Virginia had gone from bad to worse
(Dispatch, Feb. 21, 1878).
'' Journal of H. of Del., 1887-88, pp. 397, 410.
" Dispatch, Nov. 7, 1888. There was no interest in the matter.
72 The History of Si(ffragc in Virginia. [343
vided that no veteran of the Civil War or descendant of
such a person would be disfranchised."
Within the last decade three resolutions have been offered
in the General Assembly to amend the suffrage clause in
the constitution." The only one which was approved by
either House was the Le Cato resolution which passed the
Senate in February, 1898. This resolution proposed to go
back to the capitation tax as a requisite for voting.*" It
failed to pass the House of Delegates. The failure of the
General Assembly to offer any amendment with reference
to the electoral franchise was not from an unwillingness to
change, but because there had been a strong hope for a
constitutional convention where this matter might be fully
discussed.
In 1896 Senator Eugene Withers offered a resolution
providing for the calling of a constitutional convention
which passed both the Senate and the House.^' By the
provisions of this resolution, at the election held the 4th
Thursday in May, 1897, the vote of the people was taken.
The vote for the convention was 38,326; and against the
convention, 83,435.°* This seemed a decided majority, and
would, at first sight, indicate that the people did not want
a convention. The facts in the case are that a large major-
ity of the Democratic party desired a convention, but had
no fixed views as to what changes ought to be made in
suffrage. WHien such a man as Congressman William A.
Jones advised the people to vote against a convention be-
" See Dr. Priddy's proposed amendment to constitution. Dis-
patch, Jan. 6. 1900, and Journal of House of Del., 1899-1900. p. 127;
Dispatch. Feb. 2, 3. 1898.
"Journal of House of Delegates, 1897-98, p. 662; 1899-1900. p.
127: 1891-92, p. 379.
"• Dispatch, Feb. 9, 1898; Jan. 5, 1900; Jour, of H. of Del., 1897-98,
pp. 662, 693-
" Mr. Withers claimed that the expenses of the State demanded
a convention at once. The expenses in running tlie State of Vir-
ginia were two-thirds as much as North Carolina and Georgia
combined. Dispatch, Feb. 23, 1896.
"Journal of House of Delegates, 1897-98, p. 78.
343] The " Undcrzvood Constitution.'" 73
cause the Democrats seemed divided, it was but natural that
the measure should fail.'" The papers also thought it inex-
pedient to call a convention under these conditions, and the
Democratic State Convention held at Staunton failed to
make the calling of the convention a party issue.™ On the
other hand, a Republican Convention held at Staunton de-
nounced the proposition of holding a constitutional con-
vention with the intention of disfranchising illiterates and
of injuring public schools, as they claimed."' Under these
conditions (Democrats being divided and the Republicans
being united), it is easy to see why the convention move-
ment was defeated in 1897.
The matter still continued to be discussed. Such elec-
tion laws as the " Walton Law " and the " Parker Law "
have caused many Virginians to become ashamed.'" It is
an open secret that, under these laws, many frauds have
been perpetrated by the election ofBcers. Still, there is the
feeling that the white people must rule, and that, so long as
universal negro suffrage stands, such election laws as now
exist must stand. For the sake of the good name of Vir-
ginia for public honesty, all feel that some restrictions must
be placed on suffrage so that the ignorant and vicious and
those who have no " permanent common interest with, and
attachment to, the community " must be disfranchised.
Then elections may exist without fraud.
This being the state of affairs, another bill was intro-
duced in 1900 to take the vote of the people on calling a
constitutional convention. This passed the General As-
sembly. The State Democratic Convention held at Nor-
folk on the 2nd of May made the calling of a convention
a party matter, and at the spring elections held on the
°° Dispatch, May 25. 1896; June 6, 1896.
'" Dispatch, June 4, 1896.
"' Dispatch, April 24, 1896. The Democratic Convention pro-
nounced this as a slander on the party.
"' Dispatch, Feb. 29, 1896.
'<4 The History of Suffrage i)i J^irginia. [344
fourth Thursday in May. 1900, a majority of those voting
declared in favor of the measure.*"
Since the first of March, 1900, many discussions have
occurred in the papers with reference to sulifrage. From
the many newspaper articles we are justified in concluding
that a large majority of the white people of the State are
anxious for the convention to make some radical changes
in suffrage. They desire that the changes may be made
so that no whites may be disqualified, but that many negroes
may be disfranchised. At the Democratic State Conven-
tion at Norfolk in May, 1900, the party openly committed
itself to what might be termed a " white man's constitu-
tion." The following extracts from the platform then
adopted indicate the spirit which then prevailed, and which
will necessarily control the Democratic members of the
constitutional convention: " Whereas the General Assem-
bly of Virginia has submitted to the vote of the people the
question of the calling of a constitutional convention, and
whereas, it is the evident desire of the white people of
\^irginia to amend and revise the present constitution;
" Resolved, That the Democratic party, in convention
assembled, endorse the action of the General Assembly,
and earnestly urge the people of Virginia to vote on the
fourth Thursday in May for calling a constitutional con-
vention.
" Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention that in
framing a new constitution no effort should be made to
disfranchise any citizen of \'irginia who had a right to
vote prior to 1861, nor the descendant of any such person,
and that when such a constitution shall have been framed,
it shall be submitted to a vote of the people for ratification
"* The legislative caucus of the Democratic party had declared
for a convention to revise the constitution as to criminal expenses
and suffrage. There was something of an element in the party
against the convention, hut not very strong. After the action of
the Norfolk convention the matter was well supported hy the
Democrats. The official vote was 77.362 for the convention and
60.370 against it. Dispatch, April i, 5, 8, 21, 27, 29, May 2. 3, 25,
June 7, 1900.
345] The " Underwood Constitution." 75
or rejection, and the Democratic party pledge that the
expenses incident to a constitutional convention shall be
kept down to the lowest possible figures." '"'
The newspapers have repeatedly quoted these resolutions
and declared that the illiterate whites would not be dis-
franchised. We cannot but regret that the Democratic
party in a convention should have committed itself to what
seems a subterfuge to avoid direct conflict with the XlVth
and XVth amendments of the Constitution of the United
States. We realize very fully that few negroes are fit to
be citizens; that the XlVth and XVth amendments were
very great mistakes; and that they have been the cause of
all the election troubles which have prevailed in the South.
However, so long as these amendments remain a part of
the United States Constitution, it is practically a piece of
dishonesty to try to frame a constitution which in word will
not violate these amendments, while in its spirit and its
working it will disfranchise many belonging to one race
and allow the franchise to be exercised by all of another
race. For one thing, the writer of this article believes in
an educational qualification. He would like to see at least
three-fourths of the negroes deprived of their votes, but
not in the face of the present Constitution of the United
States. An educational qualification will deprive very few
of the right to vote, and for this reason it is not being
vigorously advocated by the leading politicians of the State.
It has been suggested that a poll-tax of three dollars per
annum might be imposed on every male citizen and that
no citizen could vote unless he had paid this tax for the
fiscal year preceding the election."' This would be a very
great check to the exercise of suffrage by the worthless who
never pay their taxes. To a very great extent, the fraud
which was practiced under this system between 1876 and
1882 could be avoided by forbidding the collectors from
" Dispatch, May 3, 4, 1900.
" This suggestion was made by Mr. A. F. Thomas in a paper on
'' The Virginia Constitutional Convention." This pamphlet is a
verv admirable one.
76 Tlic History of Suffrage in J^irginia. [3-iG
receiving the payment of these taxes except directly from
the person against whom the tax is levied. This capitation
tax of three dollars and an educational qualification would
work uniformly on all classes. Many plans might be sug-
gested, but w^e cannot help believing that, were the negro
(juestion eliminated, universal suffrage with an educational
(|ualification is the true standard for a democracy. With
the negro problem to face it is different. A still better
test of " a permanent common interest with, and attach-
ment to, the community " is needed, and some tax qualifi-
cation should be required. A property qualification would
be excellent but for the fact that many of our most enlight-
ened and progressive citizens often own no property (cer-
tainly no real estate), and under these conditions it would
be very hard to establish a property qualification without
disfranchising many who are really excellent citizens. A
poll-tax of two dollars or even three could be paid by such
citizens without serious embarrassment. A tax of three
dollars represents an assessment on about three hundred
dollars worth of property. If such a poll tax should be
imposed, the revenue to the vState from the voting popula-
tion would be large, and the levies on other kinds of prop-
erty would, therefore, be reduced. In certain cases a
large poll-tax would work something of a hardship; but,
taking it all in all, the levies on the tax-paying class would
practically remain the same. A man who can not pay
three dollars a year towards the State government for the
protection and liberties which he enjoys, is really not enti-
tled to a voice in controlling the policy of the government.
THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION
OF 1864
Series XIX Nos. 8-9
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor
History is past Politics and Politics are present History, — Freeman
THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION
OF 1864
By WILLIAM STARR MYERS, Ph. D.
Master of History, Country School for Boys, Baltimore
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
AUGUST-SEPTEMBER, 1901
Copyright 1901, by
JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
ZU Borb (gaftimorc (prcpe
TUB PRIRnP.NWALD COMTANV
BALTIMORB, MD., U. S. A.
PREFACE
This study was undertaken at the suggestion of Dr.
Bernard C. Steiner, of the Johns Hopkins University, and
is an attempt to trace one of the most important movements
in Maryland history. Although obscured and complicated
by the momentous events which were then rending the life
of the nation to its very foundations, its most important
phase was the effort to bring about the total abolition of
slavery in the state. President Lincoln's Emancipation
Proclamation of September 22, 1862, did not apply to
Maryland, as this state was not in rebellion, hence the local
movement was necessary in order to carry out the policy of
the National Governmicnt, and the Constitution of 1864,
with its prohibitory clause in regard to slavery, was the
result.
The subject is divided as follows: Part I. treats of the
political movement leading to the call of the Constitutional
Convention; Part IT gives an account of the sittings of
that Convention and the formation of a new Constitution;
Part III. tells of the acceptance of the Constitution by the
state.
The Proceedings and Debates of the Convention, the
State Documents and Legislative Proceedings of the
period, and the contemporary newspapers have been my
chief sources, supplemented in part by personal conversa-
tion with some of those who took part in the movement.
W. S. M.
Baltimore, Alay, 1901.
THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION OF 1864
It is a well-known fact that the two powerful and op-
posing forces of " freedom " and " slavery " battled with
each other for years in the economic and political life of
our country, till they ended in the Civil War of 1861-5. In
fact, around these forces centred all the history of the
United States up to that time, for they were born of our
Constitution, were nursed into self-assertive strength under
its provisions, and grew as the nation expanded, step by
step, year by year, from one administration to another,
till finally they overthrew all other ties of political fealty,
religious association, and patriotic allegiance, and asserted
themselves in the great question of the hour. This ques-
tion was: Shall the nation be free in its domestic rela-
tions as in its government, or shall it countenance and pro-
tect negro slavery?
Although veiled under the immediate doctrine of
" State's Rights," this fundamental contention soon pushed
its way to the fore, and in a terrible struggle of brother
against brother, was settled forever on the basis of negro
emancipation and the integrity of the Union.
The state of Maryland, situated midway between the
North and the South, the two great sections of the country
that championed the respective sides of the question, united
within her borders both the slave system, dominant in
the southern counties, as well as the practically free labor
of the northern counties and the mountain districts. To
these must be added the city of Baltimore, a seething
cauldron of divided political sentiment, and which was often
opposed by the remainder of the Commonwealth in matters
of state polity. Hence Maryland naturally became the
scene of bitter strife, consequent upon and contempora-
8 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [35-i
neous with the larger struggle that was rending our nation
to its very foundations.
Proximity to the city of Washington caused a very close
surveillance of the state on the part of the Federal au-
thorities, leading at times to direct interference in state
and local affairs by them, as the loyalty of Maryland was
in many ways very necessary to the safety of the National
Government. One can w^ell realize this by pausing to think
of the consequences to the Union of having its capital en-
tirely within the bounds of a hostile territory — a thing
practically impossible, unless unbroken military success is
presupposed, and even then a matter of great difficulty.
On the part of Maryland, the very fact of being a slave
state naturally boimd her more closely to the South,
although at the beginning of the secession agitation during
the latter part of Buchanan's administration probably the
larger part of the people were in favor of standing by the
Union. On the other hand, a majority were strongly op-
posed to coercing the South, and after the outl)rcak of
hostilities, this opposition to the war ended in quite a
change of sentiment in many cases, so that it is doubtful
if the state would have finally remained in the Union, had
it not been for the firm restraining hand of the Federal
military authorities.' After all. it is practically impossible
to reach absolute certainty in this matter, and it will always
remain a mooted point, and largely a sul)jcct for con-
jecture.
The half-hearted Union men. if we may call them such,
as well as those heartily sympathizing with the South, con-
sistently fought all the measures necessary for carrying the
war to a successful termination, such as drafting, negro
emancipation and enlistments, martial law. and military
supervision of elections and other distinctly state functions.
On November 6, 1861, the Union party succeeded in
' The Southern sympathizers claimed this in 1864. Sec Debates
ii, 825 (references merely to " Debates " and " Proceedings " refer
to those of the " State Convention of 1864").
355] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 9
electing Augustus W. Bradford governor by over 31,000
majority, 15,000 more votes than the highest candidate at
the presidential election of the preceding year.' A large
majority of the Legislature also was loyal.
By this election ^Maryland was detinitely lost to the
cause of secession, and hereafter the main struggle was over
the support of the National Government in the war meas-
ures mentioned above. The most important of these,
which dealt with the original cause of the differences be-
tween the North and the South, was slavery, and around
the question of emancipation soon centred the political ac-
tivity of the next three years. President Lincoln precipi-
tated the struggle in the spring of 1862, when he declared
his policy of compensated emancipation, especially for
the border states that had remained in the Union, and ulti-
mately leading to national abolition of slavery. He first
suggested this to some of the leading politicians, and
afterwards ofificially recommended it to Congress, but de-
sired the action of the above states to be voluntary.^
Before going further in tracing this movement, we must
take a hasty look at the changed condition of slavery in
Maryland at this time. While the interest of the people
was directed towards the stirring national affairs of political
and military moment, a domestic revolution had taken
place, not so much as dreamed of a few years before.*
" Scarcely a year had elapsed after the war commenced
before the institution of slavery in Maryland became utterly
demoralized. The master lost all control over his slave.
The relation between master and slave existed only as a
feature in the legislation of the past. There was no power
to compel obedience or submission on the part of the slave,
* Scharf, " Hist, of Md.," iii, 460, states that many illegal votes
were cast by Union soldiers stationed in Maryland and other in-
terested persons.
' Nicolay and Hay, "Life of Lincoln," viii, 450-1.
* " American," Oct. 10, 1863 (Baltimore papers referred to, unless
otherwise stated).
1(» The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [356
and there was no standard which could be ai)pealed to as
fixinc: the value of the slave as property. ^Maryland was
neither a slave nor a free state." "
Among the many reasons for this state of affairs may
be mentioned, first of all, the fact that the radical wing- of
the Republican party, which now largely favored emanci-
pation, had almost complete control of the National Gov-
ernment, and practical control of the Maryland state gov-
ernment as well, through the presence of the armed mili-
tary and the provost-marshals. Also, by the state of semi-
anarchy which always accompanies a war waged near by,
the social and industrial orders were almost paralyzed in
Maryland, and legal remedies were more slow and uncer-
tain. Again, the Federal forces regularly seized slaves,
either for enlistment or for bodily labor in connection with
the forts or supply departments, and they refused to return
them (or even runaway slaves), to their masters. These
facts are more than enough to explain the demoralized con-
dition of slavery.
Although useless for all practical purposes, this institu-
tion was by no means dead politically, as following events
will show. The people of Maryland were born and bred
during its life and strongest influence, so that it was hard
for many of them to realize the fact of its practical annihila-
tion. In addition, they desired, if slavery must go, to pro-
cure some return for their lost property.
In an aggregate population of 687,000 in i860, there
were 83,942 free negroes and 87,189 slaves. The number
of slave-owners w-as estimated at about 16,000, though
many of these owned only one or two slaves." A state
with so nearly a numerical equality between free negroes
and slaves, offered an excellent opportunity for pushing a
policy of emancipation, and this opportunity the emancipa-
tion advocates were not slow to seize.
' Inauffural address of Governor Swann, Jan. 11. 1865.
' " Debates." i, 616.
357] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 11
President Lincoln, on March 6, 1862, sent in his mes-
sage urging a poHcy of compensated emancipation, and
it was approved by resolution of Congress on April 10.'
He had an interview on this subject with the delegations
from the border states on March 10, 1862, at which two
of the Maryland representatives were present — Cornelius
L. L. Leary and John W. Crisfield — but they gave him
little encouragement. A second interview, four months
later, was no more successful, the border states practically
declining to entertain his proposals.
" Little could be expected from the Maryland Union
representatives at that time in behalf of the President's
policy. They had been elected on June 13, 1861, by the
party organization which still reflected the conservatism
existing before the war, and whose single bond of party
af^liation was opposition to secession and disunion — a
condition of political sentiment at that time common to all
the border slave states and which was formulated by the
Crittenden resolution." °
The bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia which finally, after much delay, passed Con-
gress in the month of April, 1862, served to show the peo-
ple of Maryland that the cause of emancipation was ad-
vancing, and that they must at once prepare to deal with it.
The Legislature of 1862, still showing the old suspicious
attitude of the slave-owners, who were always on the look-
out for anti-slavery measures, had already passed resolu-
tions of loyalty to the Union, but had also protested against
any agitation of the subject of emancipation. Hon.
Francis Thomas, of Maryland, on January 12, 1863,° intro-
duced in Congress a resolution looking toward compen-
sated emancipation in Maryland, and a few days later a
^ House Journal, 37th Congress, 2d Session, p. 528. Senate
Journal, p. 382.
' Nicolay and Hay, " Life of Lincoln " (from which we have
largely drawn for this period), viii, 452-4.
" House Journal, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, p. 186.
12 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [358
l)ill was actually introduced by ]\Ir. Bingham, of Ohio, for
this purpose, which, after being referred to a committee,
was reported on February 25 '" and appropriated ten mil-
lion dollars to carry the jilan into effect. Mr. Crisfield
objected, and for this and minor reasons the bill finally
passed out of sight and was not brought forward again."
But the question was not thus summarily hushed in
Maryland. Emancipation now came to the fore, and re-
mained there till the battle was fought to a finish.
" In this emergency the duty of prompt action became
imperative, and even the advocates of gradual emancipa-
tion upon the President's recommendation found them-
selves powerless in the midst of the claims of a higher
state necessity, which demanded the prompt abatement of
the evil. . . . While compensation was beyond the ability
of the state, the duty was not the less incumbent to abate
a nuisance which obstructed all the avenues of agricul-
tural, manufacturing and commercial development." "
The more radical wing of the Union party " took up the
question, and the fall election of 1863 was fought on this
line. The American, in an editorial in the issue of Oc-
tober 7, 1863, said: "As we predicted at the outset, the
question has forced its way, has compelled attention, until
at last it is the one thing dwelt upon by the first intellects
in the state, by all who are candidates for ])lace and posi-
tion at the hands of the people."
As slavery was recognized and protected by the exist-
ing state Constitution (adopted in 185 1) which said: "The
Legislature shall not pass any law abolishing the relation
of master or slave, as it now exists in this state " (Art. Ill,
Sec. 43), a constitutional amendment was necessary to
emancipation.
"* House Journal, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, 485.
" Nicolay and Hay, viii, pp. 456-7.
"Gov. Swann's inaugural address, Jan. 11. 1865.
" Not known in Maryland as the Republican party during the
war.
359] TJie Maryland Constitution of 1864. 13
But the Constitution had been formed and passed in an
irregular and unsatisfactory manner, and was unpopular
with a large number of the people, who demanded z. more
just and more modern instrument. In fact, there had
already been several movements for a Constitutional Con-
vention, notably in 1858, when the Legislature ordered a
vote on the question of a new Constitution, and made
provision for a convention in case the people were favor-
able, but there was a majority of over 8000 against it."
Later, the Legislature of 1862 made a strong move in this
direction. During the special session in the fall of 1861
permission was, on December 11, granted the Senate
" Committee on Judicial Procedure " to report a bill for
taking the sense of the people on calling a Constitutional
Convention. The bill was reported during the regular ses-
sion on January 20, 1862, and passed its third reading on
February 14. The House of Delegates amended the
Senate bill, and passed it during the night of the last day
of the session (^larch 10), seemingly returning it too late for
any further action by the Senate, as we have no subsequent
record of the bill."
The radical wing of the Union party in the state had
been sharp enough to see the advantage of combining the
emancipation sentiment with this dissatisfaction with the
State Constitution, and instead of favoring an amendment,
declared for a new Constitution in a convention in Balti-
more on May 28, 1862, composed of delegates from Union
ward-meetings." They carried this move further in the
summer of 1863. when they formed a new political party,
known as the " Unconditional LTnion," which embodied the
idea among its principles.
" Governor's Message, House Documents. 1864. Schmeckebier,
" Know Nothing Party in Maryland." 94-6. (J. H. U. Studies,
series xvii, 238-40.)
" Senate Journal (1861-2), 20, 127, 250. House Journal, 474,
894-7. Deb. I, 581.
^^ Nicolay and Hay, viii, 455.
1-i The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [360
The fall campaign of 1863 was the first general state
election since 1861, and hence the first opportunity for
radicalism to try its strength since the general Union
Party victory when Governor Bradford was elected. A
Comptroller of the Treasury, a Commissioner of the Land
Office, five members of Congress, a State Legislature and
local officials were to be elected. A mass-meeting was
held under the auspices of the Union League at the Mary-
land Institute, Baltimore, on April 20, 1863, which de-
clared for emancipation throughout those parts of the
country in rebellion, according to President Lincoln's
proclamation of September 22, 1862, and for compensated
emancipation in Maryland, according to the President's
recommendation of March 6, 1862. Governor Bradford
presided at this meeting and also addressed it, as did Hon.
Montgomery Blair, ex-Governor Hicks, and other prom-
inent Union men.
The State Central Committee, appointed by the Union
State Convention of May 23, 1861, still controlled the
party machinery, and was far too conservative to carry out
the radical program. At this juncture the Union Leagues
of the state stepped in, and in a convention held in Balti-
more on June 16, 1863, over which Henry Stockbridge
presided, boldly took their stand as " supporting the whole
policy of the Government in suppressing the Rebellion."
This of course included emancipation. The convention
adjourned over till June 23, for which date the State Cen-
tral Committee had called the regular State Convention of
the Union party.
Both conventions met in l^.altimore on the same day
and in the same building — the " Temperance Temple " on
North Gay Street.
The Central Committee Convention, refusing the Union
League overtures looking toward a subsequent " fusion "
convention, nominated S. S. Maffitt, of Cecil County, for
Comptroller, and William L. W. Seabrook, of Frederick
Countv, for Commissioner of the Land Office. The
361] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 15
Union League Convention nominated Henry H. Golds-
borough, of Talbot County, for Comptroller, and also nom-
inated Air. Seabrook for Commissioner of the Land Office.
The division was complete, and these two factions, both
loyal to the Union, had now for the present become separate
parties, and could only fight out their principles at the
polls. The conservatives, hereafter known as " Conditional
Union," while protesting their loyalty and desire that the
war be carried to a successful close, opposed President
Lincoln on account of his " unconstitutional acts " " in his
aggressive war measures, and also opposed the radical pro-
gram of emancipation and the agitation of the slavery ques-
tion, preferring a policy of compromise and delay. On the
other hand, they announced themselves as favoring the
submission to the people of the question as to the desira-
bility of calling a constitutional convention. The State
Central Committee on September 11 issued an address to
the people of the state embodying these principles. It was
signed by Thomas Swann (chairman), John P. Kennedy,
Columbus O'Donnell, John B. Seidenstricker, Thomas C.
James, George Merryman, Augustus M. Price, William H.
Stewart, and John V. L. Findlay.
The radicals, hereafter known as '' Unconditional
Union " men, came out for an aggressive policy, and forced
their candidates to the front as standing on an uncompro-
mising platform advocating a constitutional convention,
the extinction of slavery, and complete and absolute sup-
port of the National administration. To carry this out
it was absolutely necessary that they should secure a ma-
jority of the Legislature, so that they could push through
a bill for submitting to the people a call for the convention.
Their address was issued on September 16, and was signed
by William B. Hill, Henry W. Hofifman, Horace Abbott,
James E. Dwindle, William H. Shipley, S. F. Streeter,
John A. Needles, Robert Tyson, Milton Whitney and Wil-
" Frederick " Examiner," November 4, 1863.
IG The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [362
Ham H. Baltzcll. The Unconditional Union State Cen-
tral Committee, authorized by the Union League Conven-
tion of June 23, organized on September 29 and issued a
second address urging upon the people the principles ad-
vocated in that of September 15."
A vigorous campaign \vas organized by both parties,
and active work immediately began.
The Democratic party was almost dead and practically
without organization, and although candidates were nom-
inated in the lower counties, and in the First and Fifth
Congressional Districts, it abandoned the field in Balti-
more and the northern and western counties to the two
Union parties.
The cam'j^aign was most actively carried on throughout
the state, the candidates and party leaders making numer-
ous speeches, and usually urging that the result of the elec-
tion would show the sentiment of the state on the dominant
subjects of emancipation and a new Constitution. The
newspapers supporting the Unconditional Union candi-
dates also adopted the same tone, while those supporting
the opposite side were, as a rule, very guarded in their
statements, often entirely omitting all controversy, as they
evidently feared repression by the military authorities.
The most potent organ on the radical side was the Balti-
more American, which printed a series of strong anti-
slavery editorials,*" and on October 12, 1863, stated its posi-
tion by saying: "The American is not the organ of any
party — does not desire to be the organ of any party — and
never has had any aspirations for party leadership. . . .
Our idea is to get rid of Slavery in the state of Marvland
at the earliest practicable moment that such a result can be
obtained." On November 2 it further urged the people
to carr>- the state for emancipation as the " debt of gratitude
which Maryland owes the [National] Government."
Nelson, " History of Baltimore." 155.
See issues of October 7. 10, 12, 20, 21, 29.
303] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 17
On the evening of October 28 the Unconditional Union-
ists closed the campaign with a large and enthusiastic mass-
meeting in Monument Square, the largest held in Baltimore
for years. John Lee Chapman, Mayor of Baltimore, pre-
sided, and addresses were made by Henry Winter Davis,
Salmon P. Chase, General James A. Garfield, Brigadier-
General E. B. Tyler, and others of local or national reputa-
tion. Strong resolutions were passed favoring the prose-
cution of the war, " supporting the whole policy of the
[National] administration," and also saying " we are in
favor of emancipation in Maryland by a Constitutional
Convention," and that " the convention ought to meet
and conclude its labors that the Constitution may be rati-
fied at least by the next Presidential election." An addi-
tional clause declared that " traitors who do not acknowl-
edge the government whose authority protects the ballot-
box have no right to meddle with the elections." This
was perhaps intended as a judicious hint of what followed
during the next few days.
In spite of the great weight and importance of the ques-
tions involved, it has been stated by those in a position to
know, that there was much less strife and animosity of
party feeling than might have been expected, which can be
explained by the fact that the larger part of the contestants
were united in their loyalty to the Union. In addition,
affairs were further complicated and party lines practically
broken by a dissatisfied independent movement in Balti-
more City, which nominated several candidates of its own
for local offices and the Legislature. This did not obscure
the dominant questions, however, which were to be de-
decided on the election of a Comptroller.
Suddenly a different phase was put on the entire situation
by the interference of an exterior force — the military —
acting to some extent at least on the authority of the Na-
tional Government.
On October 26, Thomas Swann, chairman of the (Con-
ditional) LTnion State Central Committee, had sent the fol-
lowing letter to President Lincoln:
25
18 TIic Maryla)id Constitution of 1864. [364
Office of the Union State Central Committee,
Baltimore, October 26, 1863.
To the President.
5"iV; — A suspicion having taken possession of the minds of many
loyal Union voters of the state of Maryland, that the clcclion
about to take place on the 4th of November, will be attended with
undue interference on the part of persons claiming to represent
the wishes of the Government, I am induced, by what I know to
be the desire of a large number of our people, and in furtherance
of applications daily made to me, to ask most respectfully, that you
would place me, as Chairman of the Union State Central Com-
mittee, in possession of your views upon this subject, in order that
they may be communicated to loyal voters throughout this state.
I will beg you to believe, Mr. President, that it is with no doubt
or distrust on my part, as to what will be your response to this
letter, that I ask this favor at your hands: but simply to satisfy
a large class of persons who believe that an expression of opinion
on your part, would not be without its benefit to the people of the
state, in promoting what we all desire, a fair expression of the
public voice.
I am, with great respect, your obedient servant,
Thomas Swann,
Chairman of the Union State Central Committee.
The President replied on the next day as follows:
Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C,
October 27, 1863.
Hon. Thomas Swann.
Dear Sir: — Your letter, a copy of which is on the other half of
this sheet, is received. I trust there is no just ground for the
suspicion you mention, and I am somewhat mortified that there
could be a doubt of my views upon this point of your inquiry.
I wish all loyal, qualified voters in Maryland and elsewhere, to
have the undisturbed privilege of voting at elections; and neither
my authority nor my name can be properly used to the contrary.
Your obedient servant,
A. Lincoln.
Major-General Robert C. Schenck had been placed in
command of the Middle Department, Eig-hth Army Corps,
on December 17, 1862, with headcjnarters in Baltimore,
and had been most active in his support of the National
Government, as well as in using severe and stringent
means to suppress all traces of disloyalty. This, of course,
365] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 19
had aroused bitter opposition in the Southern sympathizers
and also the more conservative Union people of the state,
who were stated above as opposing the policy of the ad-
ministration. On the other hand, the outspoken Unionists
had, in many cases, enthusiastically supported General
Schenck. A good instance of this is found in the fact that,
when in July, 1863, he levied damages on known Southern
sympathizers in Harford county to reimburse their Union
neighbors for wanton destruction of their property by un-
known persons,'" the Second Branch of the City Council
on August 10 passed unanimous resolutions thanking him
for this severe measure, and endorsing his administration."
Now, on October 27, 1863, General Schenck issued his
famous " General Order No. 53," in which he practically
took military control of the ballot-box in the coming elec-
tion. After stating that " It is known that there are many
evil-disposed persons now at large in the state of Maryland
who have been engaged in rebellion against the lawful
Government, or have given aid and comfort or encourage-
ment to others so engaged, or who do not recognize their
allegiance to the United States, and who may avail them-
selves of the indulgence of the authority which tolerates
their presence to embarrass the approaching election, or
through it to foist enemies of the United States into power,"
it was ordered, first, that provost-marshals and other mili-
tary officers '* arrest all such persons found at, or hanging
about, or approaching any poll or place of election on No-
vember 4, 1863;" second, that these officers should require
of voters who were challenged on the ground of disloyalty
the following oath: " I do solemnly swear that I will sup-
port, protect and defend the Constitution and Government
of the United States against all enemies, whether domestic
or foreign; that I hereby pledge my allegiance, faith and
loyalty to the same, any ordinance, resolution, or law of
any State Convention or State Legislature to the contrary
"""Sun," July 30, August 8. "* " Sun," August 11.
20 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [36G
notwithstanding:; that I will at all times yield a hearty and
willing obedience to the said Constitution and Government,
and will not, either directly or indirectly, do any act in
hostility to the same, either by taking up arms against
them, or aiding, abetting, or countenancing those in arms
against them; that, without permission from the lawful au-
thority, I will have no communication, direct or indirect,
with the states in insurrection against the United States,
or with either of them, or with any person or persons within
said insurrectionary states; and that I will in all things
deport myself as a good and loyal citizen of the United
States. This I do in good faith, with full determination,
pledge, and purpose to keep this, my sworn obligation, and
without any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever."
Thirdly, it was ordered that judges of election refusing to
carry out this order were to be reported to headquarters.
As General Schenck and his officers had openly advo-
cated the election of the Unconditional Union ticket, this
order was, aside from all expediency, most unfair to the
loyal citizens in the Conditional Union and Demo-
cratic parties. It was naturally greeted with a storm of
protests by them, and execrated from one end of the state
to the other. The radical Union men, aside from political
influences, generally endorsed it, urging that the import-
ance of the full support of the Union by Maryland was
far more important than any matters of local liberty and
freedom.
Governor Bradford, a man of undoubted loyalty, who
had courageously upheld the Union cause without com-
promise, and was in personal and friendly comnninication
with the military authorities, had received no intimation
in regard tf) the order." This was rather bad treatment,
fur the chief magistrate of the state certainly deserved at
least the courtesy of a proper notice that the state laws
were to be superseded by military direction, especially since
" Governor's Mcss.Tgc. Senate and House Documents. 1864.
367] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. . 21
he had openly espoused the cause of a new Constitution
and emancipation early in the fall campaign. Entirely in
the dark as to the course of events,"^ Governor Bradford
unknowingly followed the example of Thomas Swann, and
on October 31 wrote President Lincoln, stating that rumors
were current to the efifect that the military forces were to
be present at the polls, and protesting against the same,
also saying: "As there is no reason, in my opinion, to
apprehend any riotous or violent proceedings at this elec-
tion, the inference is unavoidable that these detachments,
if sent, are expected to exert some control or influence in
that election." The letter protested against any " restric-
tions or qualifications on the right of suffrage," and added
that, judging from the President's previous course, he
thought any orders issued must be without his knowledge.
On November 2 Mr. Lincoln wrote in answer to this
letter, that he had conferred with General Schenck, who
had assured him that it was almost certain that violence
would be used at some of the voting places on election
day unless prevented by his provost guards. Further, he
justified his position with reference to his policy in the past
on the ground that the laws of Maryland required no test
of loyalty, and added that General Schenck's order " as-
sumes the right of voting to all loyal men, and whether a
man is loyal, allows that man to fix by his own oath. . . .
I revoke the first of the three propositions in General
Schenck's General Order No. 53,'* not that it is wrong in
principle, but because the military being, of necessity, ex-
clusive judges as to who shall be arrested, the provision is
liable to abuse. For the revoked part I substitute the
following: That all provost marshals and other military
officers do prevent all disturbance and violence at or about
the polls, whether offered by such persons as above de-
scribed, or by any other person or persons whatsoever.
^ Tt r:ppear.s that General Schenck's order was not at once gen-
erally jiuhlished. " See page 20.
22 . The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [368
The other two propositions of the order I allow to stand.
General Schenck is fully determined, and has my strict
orders besides, that all loyal men may vote, and vote for
whom they please."
Thus rebuffed, and recognizing the futility of any further
attempt to persuade the national and military authorities
to recede from their position, Governor Bradford imme-
diately issued (November 2) a lengthy proclamation " To the
Citizens of the State, and More Especially the Judges of
Election,'' a large part of which had been prepared before-
hand. In this document he protested strongly against the
military order and its provisions as most obnoxious and
entirely without justification, " more especially offensive and
dangerous in view of the known fact that two at least of
the five provost-marshals of the state are themselves candi-
dates for important offices, and sundry of their deputies
for others." The attention of the Judges of Election was
called to the fact that " they are on the day of election
clothed with all the authority of conservators of the peace,
and may summon to their aid any of the executive officers
of the county, and the whole power of the county itself, to
preserve order at the polls, and secure the constitutional
rights of voters." They were also reminded of their oath
to observe the laws of the state, that the elections be so
conducted as to permit the qualified voters to fully cast
their ballots, and that there was absolute legal prohibition
of military at or near the polls. The original proclamation
closed with the two following paragraphs:
" Whatsoever power the state possesses, shall be exerted
to protect them '' for anything done in the proper execu-
tion of its laws.
" Since writing the above I have seen a copy of the
President's letter to the chairman of the Union State Cen-
tral Committee, bearing the same date with the order, and
evidently showing that the order was unknown to him,
" I. c. Judges of election.
369] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 23
that it would not have been approved by him if he had
known it [beforehand?] and that it is, therefore, all the
more reprehensible."
A postscript was added containing the modification by
the President of General Order Xo. 53, as has been already
stated.
Military orders were immediately sent to the Eastern
Shore, against which it was claimed the General Order
had been especially directed (as martial law had never been
declared in this part of the state) ordering that the circula-
tion of the Proclamation be suppressed. An embargo was
laid on all steamers trading with that part of the state, and the
newspapers were forbidden to publish it."' However, Gover-
nor Bradford issued it in pamphlet form on the same day,"'
and it was finally permitted to appear in the Baltimore papers
on the morning of the election (November 4). This action
on the part of the military authorities is explained by Gen-
eral Schenck in a reply published by him on November 3,
in which he stated that he desired that there should go out
with the Governor's proclamation the letter from President
Lincoln to Governor Bradford on the subject of the action
of the military. He added that the simple purpose of the
order was " to prevent traitorous persons from controlling
in any degree by their votes, or taking part in the coming
election." Further, in order to secure peace and good
order at the polls, the of^cers entrusted with this duty were
in every case furnished with written or printed instructions
containing the following: "The ofBcers and men are cau-
tioned not to commit or permit any unlawful violence.
They must not enter into political discussions, and are to
remember that while protecting the polls from rebel sym-
pathizers, they are conservators of the peace, and are there
to support the judges of election."
This public controversy ended here, but the results of
"" Governor's Message. Senate and House Documents, 1864.
" " Sun," November 4.
24 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [370
conflicting autliority and such an uncertain and complicated
state of affairs were as might easily have been foreseen.
The election took place, as stated above, on Wednesday,
November 4, 1863, and resulted in an overwhelming victory
for the Union ticket.
Goldsborough, for Comptroller, received 36,360 votes,
and Maffilt, 15,984, an Unconditional Union majority of
nearly 20,000. In Baltimore City, the vote was 10,545 for
Goldsborough, and 367 for Maflfitt. A majority of the
state Legislature also was in favor of the Constitution!
Convention and emancipation. John A. J. Crcswell, Ed-
win H. Webster, Henry Winter Davis, and Francis
Thomas, the Unconditional Union candidates in the first
four districts respectively, were elected to Congress, Web-
ster and Davis with practically no opposition, but the Fiftli
District went Democratic, Benjamin G. Harris being suc-
cessful against his Conditional and Unconditional Union
opponents. Goldsborough's majority was about ten thou-
sand less than that of Governor Bradford in 1861, but the
Democratic votes cannot be compared, as that party had
no candidates for state ofificers in 1863. The entire Union
vote (of both parties) was practically the same in 1863 as in
1 861. although the total vote was only about half that of
the Presidential election of i860. Part of this decrease
was of course caused by lack of Democratic nominations
and also the numbers of secession sympathizers who had
gone South to enter the Confederate service: but fear of
the military at the polls, or the intimidation jiracticed by it
(of which there is absolute proof) were the greatest causes,
the number not voting at this election for these latter rea-
sons Ijcing estimated at about one-third of the total vote
in many districts of the state.^ Allowing al)solute fairness
at the polls, and even this entire amount tliroughout tlie
state as going solidly for MafTitt. Goldsborougli would still
likely have won by a good round majority, so that the mili-
*• Sec evidence in contested election cases, House Documents.
1864; also contemporary newspapers.
371] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 25
tary force used did not materially affect the final result as
much as might have been expected, except in the First
Congressional District (Eastern Shore), where it is perhaps
doubtful if Mr. Creswell could have defeated Mr. J. W.
Crisfield, his opponent. The complexion of the Legisla-
ture under these dififerent conditions is a mere matter of
guess work, for although it is nearly certain that the House
of Delegates would have still been favorable to the call of
a convention, yet the Senate remains an entirely uncertain
quantity. It is hardly necessary to state that the above
speculations refer only to the action in this election of the
nominally loyal voters, large numbers of whom were op-
posed to the Unconditional Union platform. As said at the
beginning, it is impossible accurately to estimate the sen-
timent at this time of the total population of the state.
In Baltimore City, the day of the election was very quiet.
The saloons were all closed, and the military at the polls,
under the immediate supervision of General E. B. Tyler,
is said to have neither intimidated nor attempted to ob-
struct those who offered to vote.'" The American of Novem-
ber 5 says: " Tickets of all kinds were in abundance at the
polls, and all loyal men voted their sentiments freely, so far
as the choice of candidates was concerned. . . . Mr.
ISIaffitt, the representative of the slave-holding interest, was
scarcely regarded as a candidate in the contest." The city
police, as well as the soldiers on duty at the polls, were
under strict orders to refrain from electioneering, and to
preserve the peace in every way.
As stated above,'" the main force of General Schenck's
order seemed to be directed against the Eastern Shore. A
force of infantry or cavalry was sent to each of the eight
counties on that side of the bay, and detachments under
command of subaltern officers were stationed at the various
polls." The following proclamation "" was issued by Lieu-
""See daily papers. ^ 3opa£re28.
^' Report Senate Committee on Elections, Doc. "D", 1864.
"'^ " Documents Accompanying Governor's Message," House and
Senate Doc, 1864.
26 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [372
tenant-Colonel Tevis, commanding the 3rd Maryland
Cavalry, and circulated in Kent and Queen Anne's
counties:
Headquarters 3RD Maryland Cavalry,
CnESTERTOWN, November 2, 1863.
Whereas, the President of the United States, in reply to a letter
addressed to him by Hon. Thomas Swann, of Baltimore City,
has stated that all loyal qualified voters should have a right to
vote, it therefore becomes every truly loyal citizen to avail himself
of the present opportunity oflfered to place himself honorably upon
the record or poll books at the approaching election, by giving a
full and ardent support to the whole Government ticket, upon the
platform adopted by the Union League Convention. None other
is recognized by the Federal authorities as loyal or worthy of the
support of any one who desires the peace and restoration of this
Union.
[Signed] Charles Carroll Tevis,
Lt. -Colonel Commanding.
Colonel Tevis was afterwards put under arrest by order
of General Schenck, on the charge of acting in excess of
orders, but was soon released, presumably without trial.*'
This so-called "Government Ticket" was in several, if
not all, of the counties in the First Congressional District,
printed on yellow paper, and in some instances known
Southern sympathizers were allowed to vote if they voted
this ticket, while known Unionists were excluded for refus-
ing to do so." There seems to have been no regularity of
procedure by the military, in some districts only those
tickets being thrown out which contained the name of Mr.
Crisfield for Congress, while in other places the procedure
was changed to support certain candidates for local offices.
For instance, in several districts of Somerset County, the
provost-marshal in charge, who was a candidate on the rad-
ical ticket for shcrifT of the county, announced that no one
who would vote for him should be molested. The Demo-
crats shrewdly promised to put the man on their ticket,
" " American," November 6 and 10.
"Senate and Plouse Documents, 1864.
3:3] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 27
and were allowed to vote without any difficulty, but
when the votes were counted it was found that this prac-
tical politician was sadly tricked, as nearly all the Demo-
cratic ballots showed no trace of his name. At Princess
Anne, Somerset County, the judges of election were ar-
rested, and the polls closed when only one citizen had
voted. General Lockwood soon after released the pris-
oners, but the citizens of the whole district were deprived of
voting. Several Union candidates in Kent County were
arrested by order of Captain John Frazier, Jr., himself a
candidate for a county ofBce. They were carried to Balti-
more, but were immediately released by Colonel Donn
Piatt, General Schenck's chief-of-staff, who not only
showed surprise, but disavowed responsibility for the ac-
tion. Captain Frazier, as in the case of Colonel Tevis,
was later arrested for this by General Schenck, but we
could find no record of the final outcome of the matter,
as in all probability it also was soon passed over.
Numerous other instances might be mentioned, as they
were well brought out in contested election cases,"" but
perhaps enough has been given to show the general char-
acter of the outrages. There were several isolated cases
in other parts of the state, as in Frederick and Prince
George's "'^ counties, but nothing on so large a scale and
with such bold effrontery as in the First Congressional
District.
As a result of the conflict of authority between Gover-
nor Bradford and General Schenck, there was no regu-
larity in the requirement of the prescribed oath. In some
parts of the state every voter was required to take it, and
in others it was observed very little, if at all. In a num-
ber of places on the Eastern Shore those voting the " yel-
low " ticket were not even challenged, while the remainder
were subjected to the oath. It should be noted that there
" See Senate and House Documents, 1864.
^° Debates, iii, 1735-6.
28 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [37-1
is no record of any violence or breach of the peace on the
part of the citizens of the state. This was no doubt partly
the result of intimidation, but also showed the admirable
power of self-restraint and the law-abiding character of the
people. Although, as stated above, the general result
throughout the state was not materially affected by this
use of armed force, yet the great question is as to who
was originally responsible for the move, and to what extent
it was justified. After a careful weighing of the evidence,
our opinion is that President Lincoln and General Schenck
used the military merely to keep disloyal citizens from
voting, a proceeding which may partly be justified as a
legitimate political move to strengthen the hands of the
government in time of war. The policy of the administra-
tion in regard to the other border states tends to confirm
this view.^'
The Baltimore American repeated the strong argument
that had been urged by President Lincoln in support of
this measure, by saying in an editorial on November 23,
1863: "The very fact that the laws of the state provided
no remedy for its protection against the arts of treason
as lately displayed at the polls, constituted an imperative
and all-sufficient reason why the general government
should provide some remedy for so unexpected and grave
a disability."
The great mistake, and the one for which General
Schenck deserves severe censure, if not positive condemna-
tion, is found in the fact that he not only openly espoused
the cause of the Unconditional Union party, but actually
made political speeches at various meetings in difTerent
parts of the state, and urged the people to vote for Golds-
borough and the other candidates on that ticket. He also
allowed his officers to do tlic same.*" It would be hard to
" Nicolay and Hay, " Life of Lincoln," viii, 420, 427-8, 432-3,
441, etc.
"See "Sun," .Vur. 17, Oct. 29; "American," Oct. 9, 15, 16, 19,
23, 29.
3T5] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 29
justify this on the ground of zeal for a good cause. No
wonder Colonel Tevis spoke of the Unconditional Union
as the " Government " ticket in his very original proclama-
tion at Chestertown.
On the other hand, it must be said in General Schenck's
defense, that he was hardly in any direct manner respon-
sible for the outrages on the Eastern Shore, although he
himself by his own actions practically laid the way open
for the frauds of the unscrupulous local politicians and their
supporters among the military. These in all probability
formed a part of that band of " loyal citizens " who urged
upon him the necessity of the military possession of the
polls, as he stated in his proclamation of November 3,
already mentioned.""
It is interesting to note that precisely the same order
as " Number 53 " was issued by General Schenck to govern
the election held in Delaware '° on November 19, 1863.
Far from protesting against this action, the Governor of
the state ofBcially endorsed it as follows:"
State of Delaware, Executive Department,
Dover, November 13, 1863.
All civil officers and good citizens of this State are enjoined to
obey the above military order, issued by the Commanding General
of the Middle Department, and to give all needful aid for the
proper enforcement of the same.
William Cannon.
Governor of Delaware.
An attempt was made to induce Governor Bradford to
refuse to give certificates of election in view of the un-
doubted irregularities at the polls, but after seeking the
advice of Hon. Reverdy Johnson the Governor declined
to accede to this, alleging lack of power, and that his duties
were merely ministerial in cases of this kind.
"" Issued by Gen. Schenck in answer to the Governor's proclama-
tion (see page 23). Further particulars on this subject in Gover-
nor's message, 1864.
*° Also in the jurisdiction of the Middle Department.
*' " American," Nov. 17, 1863.
30 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [376
The Legislature met at Annapolis on January 6, 1864,
and soon after organized. John S, Sellman, of Anne
Arundel was elected President of the Senate, and Thomas
H. Kemp, of Caroline, Speaker of the House of Delegates.
Governor Bradford's message was a long and able docu-
ment. It contained, in addition to the usual discussion of
the financial and other economic afifairs of the state, an
account of the controversy and difficulties at the previous
election, with some condemnation of the military author-
ities. Some suitable action on the part of the Legislature
was suggested, so as to remedy military interference and
prevent the use of marked ballots. The Governor also
urged that a Convention Rill be speedily passed, and that
a state system of education and numerous other important
subjects should be carefully considered.
In the House of Delegates, Mr. Stockbridge, of Balti-
more City, on January 8 ofifered an order that so much
of the Governor's message as related to a Constitutional
Convention be referred to a select committee of five mem-
bers, to be appointed by the Speaker, with authority to
report by bill or otherwise. This was adopted, and on the
1 2th the following committee was appointed: Messrs.
Stockbridge (chairman) and Jones, of Cecil; Trail, of Fred-
erick; Tyson, of Howard, and h^razier of Dorchester.
This committee reported a 1)ill on January 15, which pro-
vided for a vote of the citizens of the state on the question
of calling a Convention, and for the election of delegates
on the same day. Mr. Tyson presented a minority report,
around wdiich the opposition at once assembled all its
strength, as it was a measure of delay, providing for a
special vote to decide for or against a Convention, with the
addition that in case of a favorable result the Governor
was to inform the Legislature of the fact at a special session
or at the next regular one. This body then migJit provide
for the election of delegates and the assembling of such
a Convention. The contest lasted for some days and was
quite bitter. The minority report, ofifered in the form of
3?7] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 31
amendments to that of the majority, was defeated on Janu-
ary 20 by a vote of 20 in favor to 50 opposed. After long
and excited debate and continued negotiation with the
Senate, the House finally, on February 3, passed the bill
on its third reading by a vote of 43 to 17.
The Senate early appointed a committee to confer wath
a like one from the House on the subject of the recom-
mendation for a Convention contained in the Governor's
message. A joint bill was reported on January 18, and
considered by the Senate at various times, till finally the
bill passed by the House was received. Numerous propo-
sitions went back and forth between the two Houses till
finally, at the suggestion of the House of Delegates, a con-
ference committee was appointed on the morning of Feb-
ruary 8. The differences were at once adjusted, and the
committee report sent in that evening was immediately
adopted by the Senate by the vote of 14 to 2. The House
received the report on the next day, and adopted it, yeas
43, nays 15, accepting the minor Senate provisions as to
delegates, etc.
The Convention Bill, as finally passed, contained the fol-
lowing provisions: A vote was to be taken on the first Wed-
nesday of April (6th) at the usual places and in the legal
manner on the question of holding a Convention. At the
same time, delegates to this Convention w^re to be elected,
the qualifications being the same as those necessary for a
seat in the House of Delegates, and the number the same
as the total representation in both Houses of the Legisla-
ture. In making returns of votes, the judges of election
were to certify, under oath, whether there was military in-
terference (except on demand of the civil authorities), in
case of which the Governor was to order one or more new
elections in the districts afifected till that interference was
discontinued. An oath of allegiance was required of all
voters challenged on the ground of disloyalty. If the vote
at the election was favorable to a Convention, the Governor
was to issue a proclamation, calling it to meet in Annapolis
32 The Maryland Constitution of 1S64. [3T8
on the last Wednesday of April (27th). 1864. Sixty-five
delegates of the total of ninety-six were to be elected before
the Convention assembled, and fifty members were neces-
sary for a quornm. No delegate was to take his seat till
he had taken before the Governor a certain stringent oath
of loyalty. The compensation was five dollars a day and
the mileage allowed members of the Legislature. A re-
porter of debates and proceedings was to be provided by
the Convention. The Constitution and form of govern-
ment adopted was to be sulimitted to the legal and qualified
voters of the state " at such time, in such manner, and sub-
ject to such rules and regulations as said Convention may
prescribe." In case of the adoption of the new Constitu-
tion, the Governor was to issue a proclamation to that
effect, and take the necessary steps to put it into operation.
At the elections provided, the tickets were to be printed on
white paper, other ballots not to be received, and heavy
penalties were imposed on those judges of election or other
civil officers who failed to do their prescribed duty.
The campaign, in consequence of the above, began early.
As the state had declaretl for emancipation by the previous
fall election, the question now before the people was in
regard to the form that this action was to take. The Un-
conditional Union party of the state boldly took its stand in
favor of immediate emancipation without either compen-
sation of slave-owners or *' negro apprenticeship." and the
election, in a great measure, favorably settled this as far
as the i>eople were concerned.
The Conservative Union State Central Committee, at a
meeting held in P.altimore on December 16, 1863. led by
Thomas Swann and John P. Kennedy, had declared for
inunediate emancipation in the manner easiest for master
and slave, since the people had willed it at the last election.
This evidently in large measure accounts for the fact that
in Baltimore City and several counties there were merely
" Union " candidates, with no opposition. In others of
the counties, however, there were three tickets — " Uncon-
379] The Maryland Constitution of 1S64. 33
ditional " and " Conservative " Union and Democratic.
As in the previous election, the Democrats were not organ-
ized throughout the state, their nominations for Conven-
tion delegates being mainly in the lower counties. They
had no candidates in Baltimore City, and those in Balti-
more County were withdrawn before the election, leaving
the Union nominees alone in the field. Wherever there
were Democratic party organizations, they generally de-
clared themselves opposed to emancipation on any terms.*"
In fact, the declared tactics of those opposed to the Un-
conditional Union program were to delay the call of a
Convention till " all the people of the state could vote."
claiming that they would then defeat the movement. Fail-
ing that, they fougTit for compensation for slaves and some
system of negro apprenticeship.
General Schenck had resigned his command soon after
the election in the fall of 1863. in order to accept the seat in
Congress to which he had been elected as a representative
from Ohio. Brigadier-General Lockwood temporarily
filled the position of commanding general till Major-Gen-
eral Lew Wallace was appointed to the command of the
Middle Department on March 17, 1864.
General Wallace was, on the whole, more aggressive
than General Schenck in the administration of his depart-
ment, boldly taking his stand at the outset on the public
declaration that a " rebel and a traitor had no political
rights " whatever. However, on March 30, 1864, he wrote
a letter to Governor Bradford, saying that he was anxious
to frustrate the attempts of disloyal persons (some of them
candidates) to vote on April 6, and asking if there were
state laws and legislative action sufficient to prevent it.
The Governor answered the next day, saying that the laws
were entirely sufficient, if faithfully executed, as he had
every reason to hope they would be, to exclude disloyal
voters from the polls. Therefore General Wallace issued
*^ Also see p. 63.
26
3i The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [380
no general military orders like those of General Schenck,
though he compelled Air. E. G. Kilbourn, a candidate in
Anne Arundel County, to withdraw on account of his
questionable position in 1861 at the outbreak of the war.
But like his predecessor, General Wallace also made the
mistake of publicly showing his sympathy in the election,
saying at an Unconditional Union mass-meeting at the
Maryland Institute in Baltimore on April i, 1864, that "so
far as in him lay, the liberty-loving people of the good old
state should have his assistance."
The Unconditional Union policy was a second time
overwhelmingly victorious on April 6, 1864. The vote on
the Convention was 31,593 "for," to 19,524 "against," a
favorable majority of 12,069, ^^-'^ yet about 8000 less than
Goldsborough's majority in November, 1863, although the
total vote was about the same. The northern and western
counties gave large majorities for the Convention, while
the southern districts went heavily against it. In Balti-
more City the vote was 9102 favorable, with only 87 op-
posed." This shows that some sort of intimidation must
have been practiced," although the American stated " that
" the election proceeded very quietly in the city, perfect
order being observed without even the shadow of military
interference."
It appears that soldiers were w-ell distributed throughout
the state, either near the polls or within striking distance,
but the cases of direct interference were not nearly so num-
erous, and were much more scattered than in the previous
election," while there are even some records of fraud and
** It was claimed that the total vote was only one-third the usual
number hitherto cast. Debates i. 639.
" See Steiner's " Citizenship and Suffrage in Maryland," p. 42.
" Issue of April 7. It also urged that the small vote in the city
was due to lack of organization, no opposition, and to no canvass-
ing of candidates who were seeking office. See also " Sun,"
Nov. 7.
*• " Sun," April 7; Annapolis "Republican" (quoted in "Ameri-
can." .April 11); Frederick "Examiner," April 13; Debates i,
381] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 35
outrage on the part of Southern sympathizers.*^ On the
whole, intimidation rather than violence was the cause of
many citizens failing to vote. The judges of election re-
ported only one case of military interference, that in the
Rockville District of Montgomery County. A second
election w^as held in this district according to the provisions
of the Convention Bill, but as the total county vote had
shown a sufficient Democratic majority to elect the three
candidates on that ticket without any doubt, the final result
was not much afifected thereby.
Out of the total of 96 delegates elected, there were 61
Union men, nearly all pledged to unconditional emancipa-
tion, and 35 Democrats, coming mainly from the southern
part of the state.
Governor Bradford, immediately upon the receipt of
the official returns, issued a proclamation for the assem-
bling of the Convention on Wednesday, April 27, 1864.
The first act of the emancipation drama was now com-
plete. As we have attempted to show, the movement was
aided more by the general policy of armed restraint exer-
cised upon the Southern sympathizers of the state by the
National Government since the beginning of the war, than
by any of the above-mentioned instances of military inter-
ference. The radical Union program had been a success.
582, 639-40; ii, 915-6; iii, 1726, 1763. Scharf, "History of Mary-
land." iii, 579-80, gives an account of a most unfair system of chal-
lenging and questioning, aimed against those under suspicion of be-
ing Southern sympathizers. Also see Nelson, " History of Balti-
more," 551-2.
*^ Frederick "Examiner," April 13; "Sun," April 7; "Ameri-
can," April 7, 8.
II.
The Convention met at the State House in Annapolis on
Wednesday, April 27, 1864. Of the ninety-six members
elected, eighty were present on the first day. The re-
maining- sixteen, of whom fifteen were from the southern
counties, appeared within the next week or two, with the
exception of John F. Dent, of St. Mary's, who did not take
his seat in the Convention till July 7, having been detained
by illness in his family and other domestic causes.
It would have been difficult to have found at that time
a more representative body of Maryland men, nearly all of
them native-born to the state, with two striking exceptions
— Henry Stockbridge, of Baltimore City, a native of Mas-
sachusetts, and Oliver Miller, of Anne Arundel, a native of
Connecticut — who were prominent in the covmcils of the
majority and minority respectively. The members from
the southern part of the state in particular, were largely
from the oldest and best known families of Maryland, and
showed their conservatism in the fact that they formed the
minority which not only opposed emancipation, but also
nearly all other measures of reform introduced in the Con-
vention.
Five of the members had been in the Convention of
1850-1 which had formed the old Constitution — Messrs.
Chambers, Dennis, Dent, Lee and Ridgely — and J. S.
Berry, of Baltimore County, had been Speaker of the Flouse
of Delegates of the " Know Nothing" Legislature of 1858,
and at this time held the office of Adjutant-General of the
state. Messrs. Goldsborough, Smith of Carroll, Briscoe
and Dennis had been members of the celebrated " Fred-
erick Legislature " ' of 1861, the two former as pronounced
* Suppressed by the military authorities.
383] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 37
Unionists, and the others on the opposite side. Mr. Golds-
borough was now State Comptroller, having been elected
at the previous fall election as we have seen. Fourteen
had been members of the Legislature of a few months
before, of whom Messrs. Stirling and Stockbridge, both
of Baltimore City, had been most active in preparing and
advocating the Convention Bill in the Senate and House
respectively, while ]\Iessrs. Clark, of Prince George's, and
Dent, of St. Mary's, had been leaders of the opposition to
it in the House of Delegates.
In fact, it is seldom that one reads the records of events
of the ten or fifteen preceding years without coming upon
the names of many of those who were members of the Con-
vention of 1864.
Taken as delegations, those from Baltimore City, Alle-
gany and Prince George's counties were perhaps the
stronger, though several others were of nearly the same
excellence. Many members who had been side by side in
the ""Whig" and "Know Nothing" parties, or even the
" Union Party " days of i860, were now ranged on opposite
sides, in this only showing the power of that mighty force
which had sundered the former political ties of so many
of the people of the state.' It should be said in addition,
that nearly all the leaders were of the legal profession.
From the outset, the majority took a stand as support-
ing the Union and the National Government, especially
in its policy as set forth in Mr. Lincoln's administration, and
their measures were planned with the intention of keeping
Maryland well in line with these ideas. These sixty-one
Union members were from. the northern and western coun-
ties, Baltimore City, and Talbot, Caroline and Worcester
counties of the Eastern Shore, these latter three the south-
ern slave counties in which the cause of the Convention had
* For instance, Messrs. Chambers and Stirling were formerly
Whigs, Messrs. Smith (of Carroll) and Dennis had been candi-
dates on the Bell and Everett electoral ticket in i860. Mr. Golds-
borough was formerly a Democrat.
38 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [384
been successful, particularly in Worcester, where the ma-
jority had been overwhelming.' . These men, while firm and
aggressive in their policy and expressing a sense of great
responsibility,* can seldom be accused of unfairness, as
they resorted to high-handed methods in very few instances.
Although relying on their large numerical superiority, they
sometimes kindly informed the minority at the beginning
of a debate that the final outcome was already settled, a
statement more forcible than pleasant," yet, on the whole,
more fault could be found with the provisions they carried
through than with the manner of doing so.
Very few regular caucuses were held by the majority
members." for they had been largely elected on and pledged
to the same platform, so that they were a unit in many par-
ticulars, though differing widely on certain subjects, as the
judiciary, internal improvements, etc., which will be noted
later. Owing to their decided numerical superiority, it
was almost entirely unnecessary to use the " party whip "
or any other political methods in order to secure a majority
vote. Archibald Stirling, Jr., of Baltimore City, may be
regarded as their leader. He frequently closed the debate
with brilliant and forceful arguments — among the best of
those given in the Convention — rather " cutting " at times,
but always clear and logical.' He was ably seconded by
Henry Stockbridge, of Baltimore City, another of the
strongest men in the Convention; John E. Smith, of Car-
roll; Wm. T. Purnell. of Worcester, and others scarcely
less able. As stated above, the Baltimore City delegation
was extremely influential as a whole, usually standing
' 890 " for," 135 " against." We can only repeat the difficulty
of saying how much of this had been caused by force or intimida-
tion.
* Deb. i. 351-2.
° The minority often complained of their position in this respect.
See Deb., i, 274, 326, 521-2. 569: ii. 764.
' Authority of Mr. Joseph M. Gushing, a surviving member of the
Baltimore City delegation.
' F"or an opponent's estimate of Mr. Stirling, sec Deb., iii, 1748.
385] The Mafyland Constitution of 1864. 39
for the most modern and advanced measures, and aroused
little opposition or jealousy on the part of the county mem-
bers.
The thirty-five Democrats who formed the minority,
bravely, tenaciously and ably upheld their principles in a
manner worthy of admiration, but always professed their
loyalty to the Union as embodied in the Constitution of
the United States. Their position was based on state's
rights, a policy of conciliation toward the South, and, as far
as possible, a continuation of political and industrial con-
ditions as existent in the state and nation before the out-
break of the war, which they condemned as unnecessary
and an oppression of the South. They asked if it was
" any more treason for the South to subvert the Constitu-
tion by force of arms, than . . . for President Lincoln,
with his army, to subvert the Constitution by force of
arms." '
These members came entirely from the ten southern and
Eastern Shore counties of Kent, Queen Anne's, Dorchester,
Somerset, Anne Arundel, Montgomery, Prince George's,
Charles, Calvert and St. Mary's. These were the counties
which were usually designated by the Union men as
" Rebel " and " Pro-Slavery." °
One of the majority members has since said in private
conversation that the minority contained " a larger num-
ber of brilliant men for its size than any other body which
has ever come together in a legislative capacity in Mary-
land." Though no one man stands out as their leader in
the same dominating capacity as did Mr. Stirling in con-
nection with the majority, perhaps David Clarke, of Prince
George's comes nearer to this position than any other. His
speeches in the Convention, when read at the present day,
are of the greatest interest, as showing the attempt of a bril-
liant man of modern times to justify and perpetuate the
institutions of a bygone age. In fact, this may be said of
' Deb., ii, 1357. " " American," May 4, 1864.
40 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [386
a number of the minority members. Edward W. Belt, also
of Prince George's, was an exceedingly strong man, in
many ways one of the most advanced of his party, as his
course on the " usury " question will show."* A third man
from the same county, Samuel H. Berry, and also Oliver
Miller, of Anne Arundel; James U. Dennis, of Somerset;
James T. Briscoe, of Calvert, and John F. Dent, of St.
Mary's, were all of great force and influence. With them
should be mentioned Ezekicl F. Chambers, of Kent, who
always acted with the minority, and at last definitely iden-
tified himself with them, although at first claiming to rep-
resent no party. Though elderly and usually of too great
conservatism, yet his prominence is apparent when we
observe that he had been sixteen years in the State Legis-
lature and in Congress; had been a member of the Conven-
tion of 1 850- 1, and was about to be the Democratic candi-
date for Governor in the fall of 1864.
The minority, in addition to opposition in debate and by
vote, showed great ingenuity in falling back from one posi-
tion to another, as soon as the former was made untenable.
A good instance of this will be seen in the emancipation
question, where a continuation of slavery, state and na-
tional compensation, and negro apprenticeship were advo-
cated in turn. Both parties w'ere very ready to call for the
yeas and nays on leading questions, especially the minority,
who desired to put their opponents individually on record
as favoring the extreme measures which were passed.
They also used tactics of delay in some instances, but with
little success, as the majority could usually outvote them.
Hence they did not carry this sort of opposition very far,
knowing the final futility of any such attempts. At times
vigorous complaint was made against the use of the pre-
vious question by the majority in order to shut off debate.
This was largely during the latter half of the session of the
Convention, when the work was being pushed with great
activity.
'" See pages 82-83.
o87] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 41
The first two months were mainly occupied with long and
vigorous debate on the slavery and National allegiance
questions, in which both sides expressed their views freely
and often at great length. The majority frequently pro-
fessed themselves as desiring perfect fairness," and the
records go to show that, as a rule, such was the case/' Con-
sidering the weight of the questions involved, and the close
personal interest in them on the part of the members of the
Convention, many of whom not only owned slaves, but
had relatives and friends in the opposing armies, the debates
show a remarkable lack of personal abuse and recrimina-
tions. This was at a time when the fiercest of campaigns
were being waged by Grant and Lee in Virginia, and
Sherman and Johnston in Georgia, while the state of Mary-
land itself suffered under an extensive invasion. In addi-
tion, the whole country was agitated over the political cam-
paign preceding the presidential election of 1864, and
charges of " lawless oppression " were answered with the
terms of " traitor " and " Copperhead." It is pleasing to
note that throughout the entire period of the Convention in
Annapolis, the personal relations of the members were most
pleasant. Great cordiality prevailed, and friendly discus-
sion and quiet conversation on matters pertaining to the
business of the Convention frequently took place as the
members of the opposing parties met in their daily affairs
outside the State House walls.
On Wednesday, April 2^, as above stated, the Convention
held its first meeting. Henry H. Goldsborough, of Tal-
bot County, the State Comptroller, was elected president,
receiving the entire vote of the fifty-eight Union men
present. Ezekiel F. Chambers, of Kent, had been placed
in nomination for the office by the opposition, but de-
clined, and the twenty-one minority members did not vote.
The remainder of the process of organization was speedily
effected during the next few days. The standing com-
" Deb., i, 118, 207, 350. " Deb., i, 569.
42 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [388
mittees, authorized on April 28, were appointed on May 4,
and to them were at once referred the many suggestions
that had already been made by various members, as to
provisions to be embodied in the new Constitution. On the
same day a committee of six from the Baltimore City
Council, three from each branch, presented unanimous
resolutions passed by that body, inviting the Convention to
hold its sessions in Baltimore, and offering to engage a hall
for that purpose at the expense of the city. There was a
short debate as to the advisability of the step, it being
urged that Baltimore would be a much more convenient
place of meeting, for the Eastern Shore members in par-
ticular. Although the contrary ground was taken that it
would be illegal to move the Convention from Annapolis,
yet motives of expediency really prevailed, and the invi-
tation was declined by a non-partisan vote of 51 to 35."
On June 2 an unsuccessful attempt was made by several
members to reconsider this action, but nothing further came
of it." On May 12, Mr. Kennard, of Baltimore City, made
the report of the Committee on Rules." This report em-
bodied the usual rules governing legislative bodies, and
was finally adopted with slight amendments on May 23."
Provisions for the Constitution were required to be passed
by a majority of the members elected to the Convention,
but this was afterwards changed by motion of Mr. Cushing,
of Baltimore City, to a majority of those present.^' The
minority strongly opposed this, claiming that, as fifty mem-
bers would make a quorum, twenty-six out of the ninety-
six elected could thus put a final provision in the Consti-
tution." The first vote on the question was adverse, but
being brought up again under a slightly different form, it
was passed by a vote of 47 to 33, though several of the ma-
jority opposed the measure. The majority based their
"Proceedings, 19-21. " Proc, 147; Deb., i, 300-1.
" Proc, 46-56. '" Proc. 90.
" Proc, 109-10, 115-8; Deb., i, 180-5, 202-12. "Del)., i, 181.
389] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 43
main argument on the desire to expedite business. It
should be added, that during the consideration of the re-
port the minority made every possible attempt to have a
large vote of those elected to the Convention required on all
important questions, but their amendments to that effect
were regularly voted down." They thus lost all oppor-
tunity for delaying proceedings by absence from the Con-
vention and like expedients.
Almost two months were consumed before the Conven-
tion had perfected its organization and passed the Declara-
tion of Rights which contained the very important provi-
sions in regard to slavery and allegiance. During the first
five weeks of the session the debate was unlimited, both
sides indulging in speeches of great length, but on June 2
the time was limited to one hour, the minority voting in the
negative, as it seems to have been particularly desired that
absolute freedom be allowed until the Declaration of Rights
was disposed of.'" The majority again urged expediency,
and the usual arguments were successively brought up later,
when the debate was further restricted, on July 7,'' to thirty
minutes, a two-thirds vote of the members present being
necessary to allow the speaker to proceed. On July 29 a
limit of fifteen minutes during the discussion of a basis of
representation was imposed," and definitely placed at twenty
minutes on all questions on August 24.'^ On August 31
the absurdly small limit of five minutes was attempted but
voted down, the negative vote being cast by the solid
minority and several majority members. On July 7, Air.
Belt, of Prince George's, had offered the sarcastic motion
that " there shall be no debate on any subject whatever,"
which was of course lost."
The Convention adjourned over from June 4 to the
9th. on account of the Republican National Convention, to
which several of its members were delegates. That body
Proc, 75-6. '"Proc, 146-7; Deb., i, 293-300.
Proc, 230-2. " Proc.; 356. ^ Proc, 562. "* Proc, 232.
44 The MaryliDid Constitution of 1864. [390
met in the Front Street Theatre, Baltimore, on June 7,
18C4. It adopted a platform strongly urging the prosecu-
tion of the war and endorsing the policy of the National
Administration. After nominating Lincoln and Johnson,
it adjourned on June 8.
The Convention again, on June 24, adjourned over till
July 6, as a number of the members desired time to attend
to personal affairs, especially the farmers, who had their
crops to harvest. "" W'ork had hardly been resumed, when
the celebrated " Rebel Raid " occurred and interrupted pro-
ceedings for nearly two weeks more. This invasion of
Maryland deserves some attention, as it was of great con-
sequence to the people of the state, and caused a bitter
clash between the opposing sides in the Convention.
During the latter part of June, 1864, General Lee sent
General Jubal A. Early with a force, probably some fifteen
thousand men, to move down the Valley of Virginia and
make a demonstration against Washington, hoping thus
to relieve the pressure of General Grant's armies upon
Richmond. This force, after crossing the Potomac near
Shepherdstown and Falling Waters, occupied Hagerstown
on July 6, and its advance skirmished with Union troops as
far as Frederick. On Friday, July 8, the main body occu-
pied this town, and on the next day (July 9) met and de-
feated General Lew Wallace at Monocacy Junction. The
L^nion force was estimated at between seven and eight thou-
sand men, and was composed of those troops which Gen-
eral Wallace was able to collect in order to defend Balti-
more. It behaved well in the battle which lasted nearly
eight hours, but retreated in great disorder to Ellicott's
Mills. The main Confederate force turned south and occu-
pied Rockville, threatening W^ashington and skirmishing
within si,ght of that city. A small cavalry force, of which
Major Harry Gilmore was one of the commanders, was
sent to operate north and cast of Baltimore. It cut the
" Proc, 225-6; Deb., i, 74,3.
391] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 45
Northern Central Railroad near Cockeysville on July 10,
and pushed across the country, cutting the telegraph wires
on the Harford and Philadelphia turnpikes. A small de-
tachment came down Charles Street Avenue and burned
Governor Bradford's handsome residence five miles from
Baltimore at an early hour on the morning of July 11. This
was done as a retaliation for the burning of the residence
of Governor Letcher, of \'irginia, by a Union force under
General Hunter.
There was skirmishing on the York Road at Govans-
town. a few miles from the city, and also near Pikesville,
but the main part of the force struck the Philadelphia Rail-
road at Magnolia Station, eighteen miles from Baltimore,
and captured two of the morning trains from the city; also
burning the Gunpowder River bridge. They soon after
retired toward the west and joining the main body of Gen-
eral Early's army, the whole force recrossed the Potomac
at Seneca and near Poolesville, carrying a large amount
of booty with them. A levy of $200,000 had been laid
upon Frederick and collected before the town was evacu-
ated.'"
The excitement throughout the state was most intense,
but at no place greater than in Baltimore City, especially
on Sunday. July 10, when it was learned that General Wal-
lace had been defeated at J^Ionocacy. The city was
startled at an early hour of that day by the general ringing
of alarm bells, and in a short time the streets were thronged
with excited crowds. A joint proclamation was issued by
Governor Bradford, who was in the city, and by Mayor
Chapman, calling upon the citizens to rally at once to resist
the invaders, and the City Council, by a joint resolution,
appropriated $100,000 to aid in the defense. The call
met with a ready response, and it was estimated that about
ten thousand of the citizens of I>altimore were organized.
Major-General E. O. C. Ord arrived in the city on I*iIonday,
" See contemporary newspapers for further particulars.
46 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [392
and, by order of President Lincoln, assumed command of
the 8th Army Corps, relieving General Wallace from that
cliarge. Fortifications were rapidly thrown up and further
preparations were hastily made, in anticipation of the threat-
ened assault, but of course this never occurred, as General
Early retreated soon after. It is said that after the first
excitement there was great quiet and good order in Balti-
more, afTairs soon subsiding again into their usual chan-
nels. General Wallace was restored to his command on
July 28."
During this raid most of the Convention members left
Annapolis, and no regular meetings were held for ten days.
President Goldsborough and a few members remained in
the town, and by meeting and adjourning from day to day,
kept the organization of the Convention intact, till business
was resumed on July 19. Mr. Goldsborough and several
others also did duty in the fortifications of Annapolis. As
a result of the invasion, some efifect on the temper of the
Convention was to be expected, and this was not long in
appearing. On July 9, before the nearness of the danger
caused the Convention to scatter, Mr. Gushing, of Balti-
more, offered a resolution protesting loyalty to the Union,
and " preferring rather than consent to the destruction of
the Union of these United States, to have the whole land
laid waste and its entire population destroyed, hoping that
in the future, it might be resettled by some race of men more
capable of appreciating and preserving Liberty and Union."
Further, all sympathizers with the rebellion were denounced
as " recreant to the faith of their Fathers, forsaken of God,
and instigated by the devil." There was some difficulty in
securing a quorum, as the attendance was small on that
day, but in spite of a minority attempt to adjourn, the reso-
lution was successfully passed."
On July 19, immediately after business was resumed,
See contemporary newspapers for further particulars.
Proc, 247-9.
393] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 47
there was another outburst of great anger on the part of
the majority. By motion of Mr. Hatch, of Baltimore City,
thanks were tendered to Ishmael Day, of Baltimore County,
" for the heroic and gallant act in shooting down the traitor
who dared to pull down the country's flag." Mr. Schley,
of Frederick County, offered an order that the Convention
request the President, " as an act of justice and propriety,
to assess upon known sympathizers with the rebellion resi-
dent in this state, the total amount of all losses and spolia-
tions sustained by loyal citizens of the United States resi-
dent in this state, by reason of the recent rebel raid, to
compensate loyal sufferers." This was passed by a vote of
33 to 17, the minority solidly opposing it.^ On the follow-
ing day Mr. Belt offered a resolution that this order " was
improvidently passed, and that the same be and is hereby
rescinded," but it was overwhelmingly defeated by the ma-
jority members.^" On this same day Mr. Stirling sub-
mitted resolutions which, considering the number of South-
ern sympathizers in Maryland, as the experience of the past
two weeks had shown, demanded of the Government of the
United States that all those refusing to take the oath of alle-
giance or who shall have been " proved to have taken part
with or openly expressed their sympathy with the recent
invasion of the state ... be banished beyond the lines of
the army or imprisoned during the war." ^' These resolu-
tions were passed on July 21 T' The minority consistently
fought all these extreme proceedings, the resolutions being
characterized as " unjust, extraordinary and inhuman," '^
and they not only voted against them, but actively opposed
them in debate, urging in particular that the Convention
was exceeding its authority by thus acting in a legislative
capacity. Mr. Belt vainly attempted to amend Air. Stirl-
ing's resolutions by declaring that nothing contained
therein should be taken to endorse any other theory of the
Proc, 257-8. '"Proc, 267-8; Deb., ii, 830-1.
Proc, 265-6. " Proc, 273-7. =^ Deb., ii, 873.
48 The Maryland Constitution of 1S64. [394
war than that declared in 1861, in which state's rights had
been guaranteed and the desire expressed to preserve the
I'nion according to the ante-bellum conditions." Mr.
Sands, of Howard, well expressed the position of the ma-
jority members by saying: " It comes to the question
whether you will give to the loyal people of the state of
Maryland the power of the state, or whether you will allow
the secessionists to force them to the wall and make them
give up all their rights under the Constitution and the
government or drive them from the state. For one, as a
Union man, holding my allegiance to the government
straight through, I prefer to be one of the men that shall
live hi Maryland." "
On August 5, Mr. Chambers, on behalf of the thirty-five
minority members, presented a protest signed by all of
them, in which they strongly condemned these various
resolutions. In this protest they stated that the delegates
to the Convention " were elected under a law of the state,
to form a new constitution of civil government to be sub-
mitted to the people, and not to invite the inauguration of
an unlimited military despotism in the state." The resolu-
tions were condemned as being in direct conflict with many
provisions of the Declaration of Rights as lately adopted.
The protest closed by saying: " In behalf of the people
we represent, and of all the peace-loving and law-abiding
people of Maryland, and in behalf of all the fundamental
principles of civil liberty and constitutional government.
we enter this, our formal protest, against the said action of
the said delegates to this Convention." '"
The majority stigmatized this protest as discourteous to
the Convention, and it was refused a place upon the journal
by a vote of 42 to 26, although several of the Union mem-
bers opposed this latter action, and five of them voted with
the Democrats." This closed the incident.
" Proc, 27.3-5.
** Deb., ii, 826. For debate on the various resolutions, see Deb.,
ii, 800-1, 820-31.
•*Deb. ii, 1128. "Proc, 397; Del)., ii. 1126-38.
;;y5] TJic Maryland Constitution of 1864. 49
A point of much importance during the sessions of the
Convention was the question as to the eHgibility of certain
mxembers. It was commonly known that a number of them
were inehgible, according to the Convention Bill, which
imposed the same qualifications as those necessary to a seat
in the House of Delegates. On July 7, Mr. Aliller sub-
mitted an order requiring the Committee on Elections to
make a report as to what the qualifications for a seat in the
Convention actually were, but added that he meant this
to be an entirely non-partisan measure, as it would equally
affect both the majority and minority. This order was
tabled by motion of Mr. Stirling, who stated that it would
either accomplish nothing or else result in breaking up the
Convention.'''' The Committee on Elections, which had
been appointed early in the session, had as yet made no
report, so on July 8 Mr. Chambers submitted an order re-
questing the committee to do so as soon as possible. A
favorable vote on this was at once secured, but Mr. Cush-
ing's order instructing the committee to report all members
duly elected was lost by a vote of 17 to 47.^'' On August 3
the committee, consisting of of four Union and two Demo-
cratic members, unanimouslv reported all the members as
duly elected."' This report was concurred in on August 9
by a vote of 55 to 4, Mr. Miller being the main opponent
and basing his adverse argument on legal technicalities.'"
On August 6 Mr. Belt had offered a resolution declaring,
for reasons stated, that eleven named members were in-
eligible to a seat in the Convention, himself being one of
the number.'" This was indefinitely postponed on August
9, and never appeared again.*' It is worthy of note that,
although two members of the minority, Mr. Miller and Mr.
Belt, were the ones who insisted on the inquiry and led in
this " strict construction " movement, the final action was
Proc, 229; Deb., ii, 796. "^ Proc, 240-2.
Proc, 385-6. "Proc, 435-6; Deb., ii. 1195-1201.
Proc, 414-5. " Proc, 436.
27
50 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [396
entirely non-partisan, it being the general sentiment of the
Convention that the people in their sovereign capacity had
the right to elect whomsoever they pleased to represent
them in that body, even the Convention Bill to the con-
trarv, though some based their position on different inter-
j^retations of that instrument.'"
The Convention held one session a day till July 21, when
it was decided to meet in the evening as well, on every
working day except Saturday." These latter sessions were
not attended very well as a rule, there being no quorum
present on eight different evenings. There was much delay
in the work of the Convention, the larger part of the new
Constitution as finally adopted being passed during the last
six weeks of the session. The long discussion of the
Declaration of Rights and the interruptions consequent
upon the pressure of outside affairs as stated above, were
largely responsible for this. As the people of the state were
beginning to show impatience,'" the general result vvas haste
towards the end, although this caused additional mutterings.
Three sessions were held each day during the five days pre-
ceding adjournment.
The Convention finally adjourned on Tuesday, Septem-
ber 6, 1864, having passed a resolution that, in view of the
uncertain condition of affairs in the state " which might in-
terfere with the expression of the popular will on the day
to be fixed for voting on this Constitution," the adjourn-
ment was subject to the call of the president, and in case of
his death or disqualification, Messrs. Schley, Pugh, Stock-
bridge and Purnell were authorized, in the order named,
to act as president and call the Convention together."
A resolution of thanks to President Goldsborough for his
" dignified, efficient and impartial discharge of the duties
of the chair " was offered by Mr. Chambers, and unan-
** Deb., ii, 764-8; iii, 1730. " Proc. 272.
*^ " American," June 10, Aur. 2; Frederick "Examiner," June
22\ Deb., i. 98. 148, 204-5, 3-2-2-4- " Proc, 600, 773.
397] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 51
imously adopted, several of the minority leaders heartily
endorsing it/* The order in the Convention had been ex-
ceptionally good.'"
The sessions of the Convention had lasted four months
and ten days, and the average daily attendance had been
about sixty. The largest number present on any one day
was ninety-one, on June i, and the smallest was seven, on
July 18, at the close of the period of Early's invasion. There
was numerous attempts to compel the attendance of mem-
bers, to publish the names of absentees, or to deduct pay
for unexcused absence, but they all came to nothing, being
usually tabled by good majorities.^"
As stated above, there was no inducement for the
minority to attempt to delay proceedings by absenting
themselves from the Convention, as the majority were nu-
merically large enough to transact business without any aid
from their opponents, after the rules of order had been
modified to permit the adoption of a provision by a ma-
jority of the members present.
After some vacillation and delay, showing that there must
have been some compunctions of conscience on the part of
several members, the Convention followed the example of
the preceding legislature (1864), and by a small majority,
voted themselves $100 extra mileage.'' They based this
action on the clause in the Convention Bill allowing them
the same mileage as the Legislature, and thus threw on the
other body any blame for an illegal proceeding. This
action was entirely non-partisan, the leading members of
both sides dividing into opposing groups on the question.
It should be added, that in compliance with the Con-
vention Bill the debates and proceedings of the Convention
were well reported, and in point of excellence far exceed
many of the other state documents and reports of that time.
Having taken this survey of the sessions of the Conven-
Proc, 709; Deb., iii, 1852. "Deb., iii, 1757.
Proc, 78, 89, 157, 162-3, 183, 286, 498. " Proc, 707, 715-8.
r)2 The Maryland Coustitiitiou of 1864. [398
tion and its workini^s as a whole, wc now come to tlic far
more important consideration of the resuhs as shown in
the new Constitution submitted to the people.
The first report made by the standing committees having
in charge the various provisions for the Constitution was
that on the "Declaration of Rights" on May 12.' As
reported, and, in fact, as finally adopted, it was larG:ely
identical with the original " Bill of Rights " adopted in
1776, and incorporated in the Constitution of 185 1.''
The consideration of the report was immediately begun,
and consumed more time than any other part of the Con-
stitution, occupying the larger part of the first half of the
entire session of the Convention, for it settled some of the
cjuestions that had helped to influence the call for a new
Constitution.
Foremost in importance was the new article of the report,
which abolished slavery in Maryland, providing that " here-
after in this state, there shall be neither slavery nor invol-
untary servitude, except in punishment of crime, whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted; and all persons
held to service or labor as slaves, are hereby declared
free." " This article was reached on June 17, and was hotly
debated for a week. It is hardly necessary to review the
various speeches, as the usual arguments were set forth by
both sides, and though most ably presented, were largely
a re-statement of those heard throughout the nation during
the preceding hundred years. For instance, the minority
would absolutely justify slavery by long (juotations^ from
the Bible, and the majority, on the other hand, would in-
sist that the American slave system differed radically from
that acknowledged by the Scriptures. In addition, these
latter members denounced the institution as immoral, un-
just, and an incubus upon the life of the state. Ancient
" Proc, 58-64. (Tlif minority rejxirt was (Icfcattcl.)
" Deb., i. 185.
** Article 23 in report. Article 24 in f lie Constitution as adopted.
399J TJie Maryland Constitution of 1864. 53
and modern law, the Declaration of Independence and Con-
stitution of the United States, the writings of the founders
of the Repubhc, Supreme Court decisions, and various
enactments since the formation of the Union — in fact, every
conceivable authority or argument of any time or age was
skilfully advanced by the advocates of the respective sides
of the question. Although knowing the final outcome
would certainly be against them, the minority stubbornly
continued the fight till the last. They suggested the in-
corporation of provisions prohibiting the immigration of
free negroes into Maryland, or any contracts with or em-
ployment of such persons, and providing for the coloniza-
tion outside of the state of those negroes already within
her borders."
Also, Mr. Clarke offered a substitute to the emancipa-
tion article,' which declared the slaves in Maryland free
after January i, 1865, but on condition that the United
States Congress before that time should appropriate the
sum of twenty million dollars to compensate the owners
for their slaves.'" This was of course opposed by the ma-
jority as it would in all probability have been a very suc-
cessful means of indefinitely continuing the institution,
and the amendment was withdrawn by general consent."
Mr. Brown of Queen Anne's offered another amendment
providing for state assumption of the duty of the comfort-
able maintenance of the helpless and paupers emanci-
pated, but this was voted down.''* The final vote on the
article as reported by the committee was taken on June
24, and the provision was adopted on strict party lines by
53 yeas to 27 nays.'" This action, so momentous in its
consequences, was but the fulfillment by the Convention
of the Unconditional Union victories of November 4, 1863
and April 6, 1864, and although it had yet to pass the same
ordeal of a further ratification by the people, slavery was
practically dead from that hour.
Proc, 79-80. '"'' Proc, 210. " Proc, 215.
Proc, 219, 223-4. ''^ Proc, 224-5.
5-i Tin- MaryliDid Constitution of 1864. [400
Granting the fact that they should lose their slaves, the
owners naturally desired to obtain some sort of compen-
sation, and the minority never abandoned one form or other
of this idea. This might be effected in two ways — by the
state, or else by the nation. As state action could be
controlled by the Convention to a great extent, while any
reliance on Congressional action would be fallacious, the
minority insisted on this former measure. On the other
hand, as already stated, the spring campaign had been
fought on this very question, with the result that nearly
all the Union delegates were pledged against it with the
exception of those from Baltimore and Howard counties,
but even these were merely instructed to procure national
compensation if possible. Also a majority caucus held in
Annapolis on April 28 at the beginning of the session
unanimously decided that the Convention was bound by
the popular verdict to emancipation without state corn-
pensation.""
The minority nevertheless firmly maintained that slaves
were or had been private property which should not be
taken for public use without compensation."' The ma-
jority either denied this in toto or else held that slavery was
a " nuisance," and no payment should be given for the
abatement of it."' Other arguments were brought forth
by the latter, including the statement that they were un-
willing to saddle the state with a large debt for this pur-
pose,*" the Baltimore delegates in particular objecting on
account oi the fact that while a large part of the conse-
quent increase of taxation would fall on the city, it would
receive a small portion of the compensation, owing to the
comparatively few slaves within its bounds. The majority
report of the Committee on the Legislative Department.
•• " American," Apr. 30, 1864.
•" Deb., i, 596-731. " Deb., i. 590-1.
"The slaves were vahicd at from tliirty-five to forty million
dollars in i860. Mr. Clarke's representative scheme of compensa-
tion involved a payment of about twenty-six millions (Deb., i, 656).
401] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 00
made a few days before, had contained the provision (sec-
tion 40) that " The General Assembly shall pass no law,
nor make any appropriation to compensate the masters or
claimants of slaves emancipated from servitude by the
adoption of this Constitution." "* A minority report pro-
posed a provision especially giving this power,'" but it was
voted down when introduced as an amendment."' Mr.
Brown here again attempted to introduce an article pro-
viding for the maintenance of the emancipated slaves un-
able to support themselves," but the majority defeated it,
urging that the counties rather than the state should care
for the local poor, and that the regular laws of the state
dealing with this subject would be sufficient."" A motion
to strike out the above section of the committee report
failed, and it was adopted on July 25 by the vote of 38 to
13."" Mr. Briscoe of Calvert on August 31 made the last
attempt of the minority to obtain state compensation by
shrewdly offering an amendment to the provisions for the
taking of the vote on the Constitution, which provided
that at the same time there should be a separate vote on
this question. This was promptly defeated with no debate
of any consequence, the " previous question " being used."
The minority doggedly turned next to the question of
national compensation, and with slight success, for the
majority members, although rather generally opposed to
this as well, might have been put in an embarassing posi-
tion had they openly come out against it. It will be at
once remembered that one of the great traits of the Un-
conditional Union party, to which most of the latter be-
longed, had been uncompromising support of President
Lincoln's entire policy, and that necessarily included his
ofifer of national compensation for the slaves in the border
' Proc, 193. "' Proc, 209. "" Proc, 304.
Proc, 306. ""Deb., ii, 954. 957: Proc, 309.
Proc, 309-10, Article 3, sec 36, of the Constitution.
Proc, 669-70.
56 The Maryland Consiihiiion of 1S64. [402
states. The Democrats in the Convention did not fail
to push their advantage.
Early in the session Air. Clarke had presented a reso-
lution providing- for a select committee to confer with
President Lincoln on the subject," but jNlr. Negley of
Washington offered an amendment including a declaration
of emancipation in Maryland, and the whole matter was
tabled without debate." We have also seen j\Ir. Clarke's
second unsuccessful attempt, in which he desired to make
emancipation conditional upon national aid.'' But as the
(juestion of slavery within the state was now definitely
settled, the majority could no longer oppose action looking
toward national compensation on the ground that it af-
fected the final result in the state, so on July 26, Air.
Duvall of Montgomery submitted a provision to be added
to the legislative report allowing the General Assembly
to provide for the distribution of any money received from
the General Government for the purpose of compensating
the slave-owners. Mr. Jones of Somerset added an
amendment including among the beneficiaries the owners
of those slaves which had ]>een taken under the authority
of the President for use in military and other like enter-
prises, but this however was lost. Mr. Stirling now
grasped the situation and offered a provision which seemed
to satisfy both sides and was at once adopted with only
one negative vote.'* It was incorporated in the Constitu-
tion as Article 3. section 45. and provided that the '* Gen-
eral Assembly shall have power to receive from the I'nitcd
States any grant or donation of land, money or securities
for any purpose designated by the United States, and shall
administer or distribute the same according to the condi-
tions of the said grant." The motion that the General
Assemlily be recjuired in addition to make some provision
for per]ietuating records of slave (Ownership was at once
defeated crti the ground that it was unnecessary,"
y Proc, 1.^4- " Proc. 147-8. ? See page 53.
'* Proc, 319-20. •"■ Proc, 33-2-4; Deb., ii. 997-1000.
403] The Maryland Consiihitioii of 1864. 57
With the object of making as certain as possible any
prospect of the desired governmental aid, the minority
finally succeeded in having passed near the close of the
Convention a resolution appointing a committee of seven
to visit Washington and request of the President that he
recommend to Congress an appropriation for the former
slave-owners of Maryland.'" The committee was duly ap-
pointed but the compensation was never received. It
should be mentioned that the majority somewhat lessened
any feelings of elation which the so-called " Rebel " slave-
owners might feel at the prospect of receiving " Green-
backs " from the Government, by providing that the latter
should first take the oath of allegiance before receiving
any such sums."
However, the minority were not at all satisfied with this
small gain, but continued to use every expedient to per-
petuate at least a small part of the former slave-owners'
rights. With this object in view they heartily supported
the project of the apprenticeship, particularly to their
former owners, of negro minors. This subject was, for-
tunately for them, brought forward by a member of the
majority. Mr. Todd of Caroline, with several others of
his party, favored such a step, though the larger part of
them had been pledged against it as one of the campaign
issues,'" and opposed it as being either unnecessary under
the existing state law for apprenticeship, or else a " con-
cession to the slave power " which practically postponed
the emancipation of minor slaves till they became of age."
The minority on the other hand held that apprenticeship
would be only a merciful provision for many helpless chil-
dren, and a small measure of justice to the former owners
in giving some return for the previous support of minors
during their infancy. Mr. Negley and Mr. Purnell were
two of the Union members who held these views.*" The
•' Proc, 7'3-5- " Proc, 719, 771-2. " See page 32.
■■" Deb., iii. 1577, et scq. *'' Deb., iii, 1583. 1591-2.
58 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [404
movement for apprenticeship, although prominent in the
minds of the members during a large part of the debate,
particularly during the consideration of the questions of
emancipation and compensation and of the legaislative de-
partment,"' did not assume final form till August 26, when
Mr. Todd submitted his proposition in the form of an
amendment to the report of the Committee on the Judi-
ciary Department, providing an additional section which
made it the duty of the Orphan's Courts of the state to
bind out till they became of age " all negroes emancipated
by the adoption of this Constitution, who are minors, in-
capable of supporting themselves, and whose parents are
unable to maintain them," with the addition that " in all
cases the preference shall be given to their former mas-
ters, when in the judgment of said courts they are suitable
persons to have charge of them." Amendments offered by
Mr. Schley of Frederick and Mr. Stockbridge, respectively,
requiring the consent of the " parents or next friend of
the minor," and that masters should be bound to have
their apprentices taught to read and write, were both lost.
The section was divided for the vote, the first part allow-
ing apprenticeship being carried by the vote of 51 yeas
(including 28 majority votes) and 20 nays, and the second
part, giving preference to the former owners, by 45 yeas
(21 majority votes) to 27 nays." On the next day (August
27) the Union men, who were evidently rallying their
forces, introduced and carried by large majorities on a
strict party vote two new sections, the first requiring that
masters should take a stringent oath of allegiance before
negro apprentices were bound to them, and the second
prescribing heavy fines or punishment for those who de-
tained in slavery any persons emancipated by the Constitu-
tion."". This latter section was incorporated in the new
Constitution," but the former one, as well as Mr. Todd's
"Proc, 311-2. " Proc. 593-8.
** Proc, 604-7. " Art. iv, sec. 12.
405] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 59
proposition, was finally reconsidered and defeated on Sep-
tember 2. The yeas and nays were demanded in the vote
on the main proposition and showed that a number of the
minority were now against it, the cause of this change
being in all likelihood the same as that given by J\Ir.
Chambers, who now opposed the proposition as " encum*
bered with loyalty oaths." "
From the above results of the action on the slavery and
emancipation questions it can be seen that although the
minority skilfully advocated one point after another, and
tried their best to secure some of the old privileges from
the general ruin that threatened them, they w-ere over-
powered and defeated on every point of importance, and
had only the poor consolation of a vague chance of na-
tional compensation which after all never came to pass.
A second great question involved in the Declaration of
Rights, and one which vitally afifected several of the pro-
visions of the Constitution, was that of allegiance to the
United States. The report of the committee contained
the following as Article 4 ^ — " the Constitution of the
United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof,
being the supreme law of the land, every citizen of this
state owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the United States, and is not bound by any
law or ordinance of this state in contravention or subver-
sion thereof."
This declaration, enjoining upon the citizen a proper
allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, which
presupposes allegiance to the Government when constitu-
tionally conducted, thus contained in addition the danger-
ous principle of absolutely denying any original or inherent
rights on the part of the State of Maryland, which would
enable it to make the least opposition to any acts the
National Government might see fit to commit. While the
Proc, 689-91: Deb., iii, 1797-1800.
Proc, 58. (Article 5 in Constitution as adopted.)
60 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [40G
tendency of the present day is to cede more and more au-
thority to the National Administration, yet there is cer-
tainly no disposition to take away all inherent power from
the states as such, or vest in the Federal Government all
authority not absolutely guaranteed to the state by the
United States Constitution. This last is clearly the result
to which the article tended.
This movement on the part of the majority was the di-
rect outcome of the war as caused by the assertion of
state's rights on the part of the South, and as waged
according to the necessarily radical measures of Mr. Lin-
coln. Though evidently subject to the greatest abuse, it
was in reality an attempt to assert the absolute indivisi-
bility of the Union, and the paramount authority of the
National Government when acting within the letter of the
Constitution.
The members of the minority in the Convention, most
of whom were firm believers in the doctrine of state's
rights as held by the South, and in a large measure of
sovereignty vested in the states as such, in some cases
even went so far as to practically justify the South in its
action on the question. They were naturally much
aroused by this enunciation of paramount allegiance to
the National Government, and were unable to condemn
the article in sufficiently strong terms." The debate on
the article was long and brilliant, consuming a large part
of the time for over two weeks, and was a careful treat-
ment of the history of our country from earliest colonial
times do\VTi to the causes of the war, as well as a review of
the growth of justice and freedom from the days of Run-
nymede to the present time. Although the (|uestion was
touched upon to some extent during the consideration of
other subjects throughout the entire session of the Con-
vention, Mr. Clarke on June i opened the regular debate
" A minority report from the committee condemned this article
in addition to the one embodying emancipation. (Proc, 63-4.)
407] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 61
on the article in a masterly speech of several hours dura-
tion."' He began by offering an amendment in part de-
claring " allegiance to the Constitution and Government
of the United States within the limits of the powers con-
ferred by that Constitution," and giving to the State of
Maryland sovereignty in so far as it is not restricted by
the Constitution."" The gist of his argument was that the
states were sovereign as states, but that they had yielded
up a sufficient amount of their sovereignty to the General
Government to deprive them, among other things of the
power of seceding from the Union, and that the article as
reported specifically deprived the states of that measure of
sovereignty w-hich was inherently theirs. This may be
taken as the average position of the minority on the ques-
tion, for although some, as above stated, went further in
their assertion of state's rights, yet others stopped short
of it, while all protested their personal loyalty to the Na-
tional Constitution.
The position of the majority is so well given by the ar-
ticle itself that there is no necessity of restating it. Mr.
Stirling closed the entire debate on this question with one
of the finest speeches in the Convention,'" his aim being to
vindicate the position of the majority, not only by uphold-
ing the doctrine of absolute national sovereignty, but by
stating that the " paramount allegiance " set forth in the
article as reported was merely an old and commonly recog-
nized principle of government restated, perhaps in a novel
form, but given in this way in order to meet the questions
as to its very being which had been raised during the last
few years in consequence of the momentous events that
had happened. The declaration of this principle should
be placed in the " Declaration of Rights " since the relation
of the person to the National Government was one of the
dearest rights pertaining to the individual. The majority
tenaciously held to the article as reported, and would take
"" Deb., i, 273-92. "■■' Proc, 144-5. "" Deb., i, 521-32.
63 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [408
nothing less, for they evidently desired by this action to
strengthen the hands of the President and put Maryland
in the position of officially endorsing his administration."'
This political consideration should not be forgotten, es-
pecially as the contemporary excitement incident to Mr.
Lincoln's candidacy for a second term may have influ-
enced the Convention. The result was, that Mr. Clarke's
amendment was voted down, and also several others by
means of which the minority attempted to mitigate the
force of the article,"' and this latter was finally adopted
on June 16 by the party vote of 53 to 32."'
The third in importance and last of the new articles in-
corporated in the " Declaration of Rights " was that in-
troduced by Mr. Abbott of Baltimore City on June 11, and
adopted without debate on July 7, after a slight change of
phraseology."^ It declared — " That we hold it to be self-
evident that all men are created equally free; that they are
endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the pro-
ceeds of their own labor and the pursuit of happiness." It
was merely a broad statement of the principle involved in
the article abolishing slavery.
Another very interesting change was that made in Ar-
ticle 2, which declares the " unalienable right " of the people
to " alter, reform or abolish " the form of government
which originates from them. The words contained in the
old Constitution of 1850-1 " whicli limited this p(i]nilar
right to the " mode prescribed " in that document were
omitted. This action was not taken on strict party lines,
for although nearly all the members opposing it were of
the minority, yet a numbcM- of them rose above the rigid
*' See Proc, 209, for an order introcluccil l)y Mr. Hatcli, of Bal-
timore City, with this special (.nd in view.
"Proc, 150-1, 199-201.
*" Proc., 204. (Article 5 in the Constitution.)
" Proc, 173, 233-4. (Article i in Constitution.)
" Declaration of Rights. Article i.
409] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 63
constructionism so prevalent among the members of this
last-named faction, and voted in the afTfirmative."" The
change was evidently the direct result of an argument
which had been most skilfully used against calling a Con-
vention during the campaign of the preceding spring,"' and
was based not only on the above-mentioned clause of the
" Declaration of Rights " of the old Constitution, but on
Article 11 of that instrument which provided that "It
shall be the duty of the Legislature, at its first session
immediately succeeding the returns of every census of the
United States, hereafter taken, to pass a law for ascertain-
ing, at the next general election of Delegates, the sense of
the people of Maryland in regard to the calling a Conven-
tion for altering the Constitution." As we know, the
Legislature of 1861-2 had failed to do this,'^ hence it was
held by some that the succeeding body of 1864 had ex-
ceeded its authority in framing the Convention Bill, and
that the Bill was unconstitutional. The advocates of the
measure had at once answered the argument by taking
their stand on the absolute sovereignty of the people, and
their right of revolution as a last resort, urging that the
acceptance of the Convention Bill at the election was sufiEi-
cient to make it the supreme law- of the land. This was
the line of argument followed during the debate on the
revision question in the Convention, it being stated in addi-
tion that it might with equal ease be proved that the Con-
stitutional Convention of 1850-1 had been revolutionary,
as it had not been called according to the provisions of the
Constitution of 1776.°"
The other facts of importance which should be men-
tioned in connection with the " Declaration of Rights " as
adopted are, first of all, that Article 7 still confined the
right of suffrage to the free zvhitc male citizens. Again,
the general sentiment of the Convention was without re-
Proc, 90, 94-6; Deb., i, 133-46, 149-60. "Deb., i, 134, 390.
See page 13. ""Deb., i, 140-1, 150-5.
(ii The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [410
gard to political lines, largely opposed to any poll-tax.'""
so the prohibitory clause was retained in Article 15 with
a slight change of phraseology."" Article 22 limited the
declaration against compulsory evidence to criminal cases
thereafter, in order to conform to the laws as it stood in the
Code, by which any party might in any civil case be com-
pelled in a Court of Common Law, as well a> in Equity,
to give evidence against himself. Article 27 was changed
to allow forfeiture of estate for treason, a thing heretofore
not allowed in Maryland for any cause.'" The minority
of course opposed this change. ]\Ir. Chambers in particular
leading in the debate against it. the ground taken being
that it would be an inhuman and unjust treatment of the
innocent wife and children of a man convicted. Mr.
Clarke made an effort to amend the article by having the
forfeiture of estate onl}' continue during the life of the
person convicted, but was unsuccessful,'"' as the majority
could not leave open this chance for future questioning
of the various confiscations of " rebel " i)roperty. Article
31 changed the phraseology in regard to quartering sol-
diers in time of war, by providing that the manner should
be " prescribed by law," thus corresponding literally with
the third amendment to the Constitution of the United
States. The words formerly used had been " as the Leg-
islature may direct." ' " The requirement of a test oath of
allegiance both to Maryland and the United States, was
inserted in Article 37. which treated of the tests or quali-
fications required for office. The minority opposed this.
An additional change was made in the same article by
omitting the word " Jews " and allowing all persons, with-
"" Deb., i, 168-80, 190-201, 217-20. Mr. Junes, of Somerset,
favored an income tax (Deb., i, 188-9).
"" Proc. 106-8. 1 10-4. 123-5.
'"Article 24 in Cnnstitutif)n of 1850-1.
""Proc, i.li, 1.^-41; Deb., i. 239-47. -249-70.
'** Proc. 158-9: Deb., i. 356-60 (observe tbe different numbering of
the articles in the report of the committee, etc.).
411] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 65
out distinction to make a declaration of belief either in the
Christian religion, or in the existence of God, and in a
future state of rewards and punishments.'"' Article 40
added to the provision for the liberty of the press a clause
making a person responsible for the abuse of this right/""
Article 43 declared the encouragement of a judicious sys-
tem of general education to be among the duties of the
Legislature, and Article 45 prohibited only the Legislature
from altering the Constitution except in the manner pre-
scribed or directed. This left to the people the inalienable
right of changing their form of government and thus con-
formed to Article 2, as modified in the manner stated
above."'
To sum up, it should be said that the changes in the
" Declaration of Rights," as given above, show first a de-
cided movement toward an increase in the civil liberty of
the individual by the abolition of slavery, the vesting of
final sovereignty in the people, and the broadening of the
religious test in an oath or affirmation. Secondly, there
was a somewhat counter tendency toward strong centrali-
zation of power in the National Government, and also an*
entire submission to and approval of the war policy of
President Lincoln.
The Constitution itself, in establishing a form of govern-
ment for the State of Maryland as contrasted with the pre-
vious document of 1850-1, shows a number of interesting
changes, which were in part the immediate results of the
Civil War, and in part caused by a growing spirit of pro-
gress in the state, which was at times reflected in the Con-
vention, where provisions were suggested which would
have been years in advance of the average opinion of the
people. In considering these various changes the order of
"' Proc, 165-6; Deb., i, 371-82.
"' Proc, 167-9, 172-3; Deb., i, 393-400 (articles "39" and "45
[46] combined into Article " 40 " — Proc, 434).
'•^ See pp. 62-63.
28
66 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [412
the Constitution will be followed in part, and in part a
grouping by subjects.'"'
Article i, on the Elective Franchise, largely followed
the plan of the corresponding article in the preceding Con-
stitution. It also contained one of the best of the new
provisions, that requiring the General Assembly to pro-
vide for an uniform registration of the names of the voters
of the state, a thing as yet unknown in ^Maryland. This
registration was made the evidence of the qualification of
citizens to vote at all elections.'"" In relation to bribery,
section 5 of the same article added to the former prohibi-
tive provision a clause disfranchising a person guilty of
fraud in procuring for himself or any other person a nomi-
nation for any office. This was the result of a motion by
Mr. Stockbridge, who desired to incorporate in addition
the application of this provision to primary meetings and
nominating conventions, an advanced reform movement
only beginning to be considered at the present day. The
Convention voted it down as impracticable.""
The oaths of allegiance for voters and public ofliicials as
contained in this article were perhaps the most unpopular
feature of the Constitution, and did more to cause its re-
luctant acceptance by the state and its final abrogation in
1867"' than any other one thing in connection with it.
They were of course the direct outcome of the war and
only applicable to the conditions arising at that time.
General Schenck's much-discussed order governing the
elections of 1863, the various invasions and raids into
"* The. entire new Constitution, as adopted, may be found in
Proc, 721-70.
"* Proc, 4,34, 513. 686; Deb., iii, 1784. This provision was carried
out by the Legislature of 1865. Sec Stciner, " Citizenship and
Suffrage in Maryland," pp. 47-8.
""Proc., 510-1; Deb., ii. 1381-3. Mr. Miller had desired to make
voting compulsory by an article in the " Declaration of Rights,"
Proc, 1 1 1-2.
'" The present Constitution of Maryland was formed in that
year.
413] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 67
Maryland by Southern forces during the last two years,
and the many instances of divided sympathy consequent
upon the position of Maryland as a border state; all these
facts may be considered as exerting a strong influence
toward this radical action on the part of the majority mem-
bers. The report handed in by the four Union members
of the Committee on Elective Franchise "" had contained
a test oath as a qualification for office, which was after-
wards amended to make it more stringent. A minority
report handed in by Messrs. Brown of Queen Anne's and
Marbury of Prince George's "' had contained merely an
oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution and laws of Maryland. Neither re-
port contained a test oath for voters. Mr. Stirling on
August II offered the amendments which were finally
adopted as section 4, and prescribed the disqualifications
arising under the war, and the additional oath for voters.'"
The provision, which was quite long, forever disfranchised
and prohibited from holding office all those who had at
any time been in armed hostility to the United States or
in any manner " in the service of the so-called Confederate
States of America," who had voluntarily gone South for
that purpose, had given aid, comfort, countenance or sup-
port to the enemies of the United States or adhered to
them by contributing to them, or " unlawfully sending
within the lines of such enemies money or goods or letters
or information," or " disloyally held communication with
them." In addition there were included under the ban all
those who had " advised any person to enter the service
of the said enemies, or aided any person so to enter or who
[had] by any open word or deed declared [their] adhesion
to the cause of the enemies of the United States, or [their]
desire for the triumph of said enemies over the arms of the
United States." These disqualifications could be removed
only by service in the military forces of the Union,
"' Proc, 431-3- '"^Proc, 449-51- "* Proc, 463-8.
G8 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [414
or by an act of the General Assembly passed by a two-
thirds vote of all the members elected to each house, and
restoring the offender to his full rights of citizenship.
The " Officers of Registration " and " Judges of Election "
were " carefully to exclude from voting, or being regis-
tered, all persons so as above disqualified." The hands of
these officials were strengthened by the additional clause
that " the taking of such oath shall not be deemed con-
clusive evidence of the right of such person to vote," thus
leaving to them individually the final judgment in the
matter. In order to cover the first election under the
Constitution and the subsequent registration for which the
Legislature was to provide, the above-given oath was re-
quired of all voters and the Judges of Election must state
in the returns that this provision had been complied with.'"
Mr. Berry of Prince George's attempted to insert a clause
limiting the imposition of the oath to cases where there
was a challenge " by a legally qualified voter, resident of
said district or ward in which the vote is oflfered," but it
was voted down 12 yeas to 47 nays."" A similar fate had
befallen the attempt of Mr. Davis of Charles to declare in
the first section of the same article that " all persons
[should] be considered loyal who [had] not been con-
victed in some Court of Law of disloyalty." "'
Mr. Stirling also offered the provision which was adopt-
ed, with several amendments, and contained an equally
stringent oath of office."" It required of " every person
elected or appointed " to any office under the Constitution
or laws pursuant thereto, that he should not only swear
allegiance to the Constitution, Laws, and Government of
the United States " as the supreme law of the land, any
law or ordinance of this or any state, to the contrary, not-
withstanding," and that he had not used any unfair meas-
"• Mr. Stirling distinctly stated this object. Deb., ii, 1272.
"* Proc, 466-7. See Nelson, " Baltimore." p. 573.
'"Proc, 462-3.
"■ Proc, 472-4, 505-8 (Section 7 in Ccjnstitution).
415] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 69
ures, of bribery or illegal voting, but in addition that he
had " never directly or indirectly by word, act, or deed,
given any aid, comfort or encouragement to those in re-
bellion against the United States or lawful authorities, there-
of," but that he had been truly and loyally on the Union
side. Further, that he would to the best of his abilities
protect and defend the Union and " at all times discounte-
nance and oppose all political combinations having for
their object such dissolution or destruction." Mr. Scott
of Cecil had offered an amendment to the original report
requiring the ofificer-elect to swear among other extrava-
gant things that he had " uniformly and at all times de-
nounced [those in rebellion] not only as rebels against
and traitors to their country, but as enemies of the hu-
man race " ! However, Mr. Stirling's amendment was the
one which superseded this latter."^' An additional pro-
vision offered by Mr. Stirling was adopted, which required
all those in office under the preceding Constitution to take
the above oath of office within thirty days after the new
instrument had gone into effect. The office should be ipso
facto vacant if the incumbent should fail to fulfill this con-
dition.""
As was to be expected, the minority stoutly opposed
these oaths or tests, declaring them to be especially di-
rected against the large number of true Union men who
opposed the " usurpations " of the National Government."'
An unsuccessful series of bitter and sarcastic amendments
was offered by Mr. Jones of Somerset putting the observ-
ance of the " Ten Commandments " in the test oath, and
the affirmation that the person had " faithfully supported
the Constitution of the United States against all violations
of the same whether in the Northern or Southern States,
or in any department of the Government of the United
States, civil or military." '" A more serious attempt to
' Proc, 422-4, 505-8. "" Proc, 512-3-
Deb., ii, 1334. "' Proc, 449-500.
70 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [416
provide that the prescribed oaths be in force only till the
end of the war was voted down, 47 to 23,"'
The debate on all these questions was more bitter than
at any other time during the Convention, with perhaps the
exception of the consideration of the soldiers' vote and of
the mode of submittinj^ the new Constitution to the
people."* The minority held that the oaths largely tended
to continue after the war had ceased the conditions co-ex-
isting with it, and would go far to prevent the subsequent
reconciliation necessary to the peace and prosperity of a
reunited country. They also rightfully objected that it
gave far too much power to the Judges of Election, and
offered every opportunity for unfairness and abuse."'
Another strong point was that it was eminently im-
proper to compel the entire support of the National Gov-
ernment, a requirement especially irritating to many who
held that the coercion of the South was in violation of the
Constitution of the United States.""
The majority held that there was nothing unusual in
the oaths when the circumstances in which the state was
placed were considered, and that no one could faithfully,
zealously, and honestly serve the State of Maryland as an
officer, who could not undergo the prescribed tests."'
We of this day, while admitting the force of the argu-
ments of both sides in the Convention, must necessarily
take a middle course in forming our judgment, and con-
clude that the majority were right in providing test oaths
of some sort as a war measure, but that they made a great
mistake in the extent of their requirements and the method
of enforcing them.
Other points of interest to be noted in connection with
the treatment of the franchise are that it was again in this
connection restricted to white male citizens, and that there
were unsuccessful attempts to allow ex-convicts to vote
'"Proc, 511-2. "*Deb., ii, 1262-89. 1299-1303. 1330-81.
'" Deb., ii. 1266. 1335- '" Deb., ii. 1359. "' Deb., ii, 1358-9.
417] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 71
after a certain period of good behavior, or consequent
upon legislative action/'" The provision which required
the General Assembly to provide by law for taking the
votes of soldiers in the army of the United States serving
in the field"" will be considered later, as the main oppo-
sition centered around this entirely new provision when it
was applied to the vote on the ratification of the Consti-
tution.""
The new instrument showed a number of changes in
regard to state officials, and the positions they occupied.
In the Executive Department the old " Gubernatorial Dis-
tricts," from each of which the Governor was chosen in
turn,"' were abolished, thus doing away with a useless and
cumbersome institution. The salary of the chief executive
was raised from $3600 to $4000."' A proposal to give him
the veto power was speedily tabled by the Convention,
which considered this an unnecessary departure from the
custom of the past.''' As the judiciary and most of the
other state officers were to be elected his appointing power
was small.
The office of Lieutenant-Governor was created — an en-
tirely new departure for the State of Maryland. The same
qualifications and same manner and time of election were
prescribed as in the case of the Governor. This new
officer was to preside over the Senate with the right of a
casting vote in case of a tie, and was also to succeed to the
office of the Executive, in case of the " death, resignation,
removal from the state, or other disqualification " of the
latter. He was to receive no salary but the same compensa-
tion as that allowed the Speaker of the House of Delegates
during the sessions of the General Assembly."^ The creation
of this office was an idea which originated in the Conven-
'"-* Proc, 474-5. '"^ Art. i, sec. 2. "" See pages 88-90.
"' There were three districts — Eastern Shore, Western Shore,
and western part of the state. See Cons. 1850-1, Art. ii, sec. 5.
"* Article ii, section 22. '" Deb., ii, 898. "' Art. ii, sec. 6-10.
72 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [418
tion, and had previously been little discussed in the State,
if at all.'" The minority members of the Committee on
the Executive Department had brought in a report against
this new office '" and although Mr. Smith of Carroll and a
few others of the majority members joined with the other
political faction in opposing the office as unnecessary, the
measure passed without much difficulty or delay.'" Those
favoring it brought forth as the reasons for their action the
fact that the provision gave an additional popular feature
to the Constitution by making the people doubly secure of
the choice of their chief executive, and brought the Gov-
ernment of Maryland in line with those of a majority of the
states of the Union."* A move to abolish the office of
Secretary of State and combine its duties with those of
the Lieutenant-Governor was quickly defeated.""
Another new state office created was that of Attorney-
General, which also was to a great extent an idea of the
Convention members.'*" This office had existed before
1 85 1, but was abolished by the Constitution of that year.'"
The reason for that action, as given by Judge Chambers,'"
who had been a member of the Convention which framed
the instrument, was not from any belief that the office was
unnecessary, but purely from personal considerations, hav-
ing relation to an individual who it was supposed was
going to obtain the office. There was now ])ractically no
opposition in the Convention to its re-estal:)iishment, and
it was provided '" that the Attorney-General be elected by
the people for a term of four years, that to be eligible he
must have resided and practiced law in the state for at
least seven years next preceding his election, and must
perform the usual duties required of such an officer. The
salary was $2500 a year. There was no change of any
Authority of Mr. Joseph M. Gushing. "" Proc. 448-9.
Proc, 492-3. '" Deb., ii. 1317-9. "' Proc, 49,3.
'Authority of Mr. Joseph M. Gushing.
Art. 3, section 2,2. '" Deb., iii, 1463. '** Art. v, sees. 1-6.
419] TJic Maryland Constitution of 1864. 73
consequence in regard to the provisions for State's Attor-
neys.'" In regard to the Treasury Department '" it is
hardly necessary to say more than that the provisions of
the old Constitution were closely followed with only a
few minor changes in phraseology. As before, the Comp-
troller was to be elected by popular vote for a term of two
years, and at each session of the Legislature the State
Treasurer was to be chosen by joint ballot, to hold his
office for a like term. The salary of both officers remained
at $2500 a year.
The Commissioner of the Land Office was now to re-
ceive the fixed salary of $2000 a year, and pay into the
Treasury all fees received, instead of retaining them as his
compensation according to the former provision.'" There
was some question as to the desirability of abolishing this
office, but it was finally retained as a necessary part of
the administration.'" The salary of the State Librarian
was increased from $1000 to $1500, and the Legislature
was to pass no law whereby he was to receive additional
compensation.'" This action was intended to give that
officer an adequate salary and abolish extra Legislative
appropriations for certain duties performed.'" The " Board
of Public Works " was entirely reorganized. The old
provision for electing four " Commissioners " from a like
number of districts into which the state was divided "" was
abolished, and the board now consisted of the Governor,
the Comptroller and the Treasurer, who were to receive
no additional compensation for the performance of their
duties in this connection. This board superintended the
interests of the state in internal improvement.'"
The other state officials will be mentioned in connection
with the more important departments of administration
with which they were connected.
'Art. V, sees. 7-11. '"Art. vi. ^^ Art. vii, sec. 3.
Deb., ii, 1090-4. ^** Art. viii, sec. 4. '"Deb., ii, 1101-9.
Cons. 1850-1, Art. vii, sees. 1-3. '" Art. vii, sees. 1-2.
7i The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [420
The article dealing with the Legislative Department
(III) showed a number of changes, most of them in the
line of improvement. In this connection, the most im-
portant question of all was that of basis of representation,
concerning which there had been much complaint through-
out the state, especially on the part of Baltimore City and
the northern and western counties. In 185 1 the prin-
ciple of representation according to population had been
adopted for the first time,'" but with the restriction that
Baltimore City should have only four more members than
the largest county. At the same time the entire popula-
tion, white and black, slave and free, was made the basis.
The above-mentioned parts of the state justly condemned
all this, which gave to the southern, slave-holding counties
an unfair measure of power and the practical domination
of the state.'" As can be well imagined, the majority
members of the Convention, particularly those from Balti-
more City, were determined to change this system en-
tirely. The minority, coming altogether from the more-
favored section of the state, naturally fought the move
with all their might, particularly as they would be helped
in some measure by the county members of the majority,
who w^ere evidently unwilling to have the basis placed en-
tirely on population, for the reason that in this case Balti-
more City would be given too much power for their liking.
Under these circumstances, the compromise was effected
according to which the basis of population was applied by
an artificial rule, limiting Baltimore City and the larger
counties, but with the result of allowing the city a larger
representation than heretofore. The entire majority, how-
ever, joined together in a shrewd political move and in-
creased the reduction of the political power of the southern
'"A constitutional amendment in 1837 had only partially incor-
porated this principle.
"* See Nelson, " Baltimore," p. 157. for a quotation on this sub-
ject from a speech of Hon. Henry Winter Davis; also see news-
papers of 1863-4.
431] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 75
counties consequent upon the above, by making the white
population of the state the exclusive basis of representa-
tion in the House of Delegates.
Early in the session of the Convention Mr. Clarke ofter-
ed resolutions to the effect that it was " inexpedient ....
to adopt a system of representation based exclusively upon
population," and recommending instead that this principle
be applied to the counties, and then four more delegates
be given to Baltimore City than would fall to the largest
county. A plan of apportionment also submitted by Mr.
Clarke divided the county population by seven thousand,
giving Baltimore County, the most populous, a represen-
tation of eight, and consequently twelve to the city, the
entire number of delegates to be eighty. Failing this
plan, if the whole state was to be represented according to
population, districts were to be substituted in Baltimore
City. These resolutions were referred to the Committee
on Representation.'" Mr. Belt submitted the proposition
that the entire state be divided into electoral districts, and
this was the ground on which the minority took its stand."'
Mr. Abbott of Baltimore City on May 27 made the re-
port of the six Union members of the Committee on Rep-
resentation, which furnished the foundation of the com-
promise plan that was finally adopted as above stated."'
The three Democratic members handed in a minority re-
port embodying Mr. Clarke's plan of giving the counties
representation according to population, and Baltimore
City four more delegates than the largest county."' This
was voted down by the party vote of 26 yeas to 46 nays."^
The minority, as already stated, now skilfully took its
stand on the electoral district plan, which would tend to
slightly diminish the overwhelming party influence of the
larger counties and Baltimore City in particular, by afford-
ing opportunity for the minor political party (at this time
Proc, 26-7, 31-3. ^"Proc, 88. "" Proc, 120-1.
Proc, 122-3. '''Proc., 351.
76 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [432
of course the Democratic) to secure the election of repre-
sentatives from those districts in which it might be strong,
whereas it would perhaps be defeated entirely if the vote
of the whole county or city were thrown together. They
urged as their main argument in favor of this method that
every voter throughout the state would thus cast his ballot
for one delegate, while under the other plan the citizen in
the smaller counties might vote for only one or two dele-
gates, and the citizen in Baltimore City or a larger county
for eight or ten, or perhaps more. This second plan was
lost,"" and the minority now turned their attention to les-
sening the representation of Baltimore City, and increas-
ing that of the smaller counties as much as possible.
As finally adopted,""" the representation was according
to the following plan:"" Baltimore was divided into three
legislative districts, and each one of these districts,"' as
well as each county of the state, was to be represented by
one Senator, elected by the people for the term of four
years, subject to a classification by which the election of
one-half of the entire number should occur every two
years. The apportionment of the Delegates was as fol-
lows: for every five thousand persons or fractional part
over one-half, one Delegate to be chosen until the number
for each county and legislative district of Baltimore City
should reach five, above that number one delegate for
every twenty thousand persons or larger fractional part
thereof, and after this, one for every eighty thousand per-
sons or larger fractional part. Until the next census was
taken the representation was to be as specifically provided
in the Constitution, which gave Baltimore City altogether
eighteen delegates,"" and sixty-two delegates to the coun-
ties. A sharp struggle occurred on the representation of
"* Proc. 352, 360-1. "" Proc, 352, 362, (yi9-A2.
'" Art. iii, sees. 2-4, 7.
'" Baltimore had hitherto only one senator and ten delegates.
The committee report had provided twenty-one delegates for the
city (Proc, 120-1). "" See note, preceding page.
423] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 77
Baltimore and Kent counties. The latter county fell only
153 short of the necessary population required for two
delegates/" and the former claimed an additional delegate
for the reason that its population of 46,722 placed it within
the arbitrary twenty-thousand rule, so that it had only six
delegates, one more than Allegany for instance, which had
19,507 population, less than half of that of Baltimore
County. It was finally decided near the close of the Con-
vention to give Kent the extra delegate, but Baltimore
County was held down to the letter of the rule adopted.'""
It is interesting to note that throughout the considera-
tion of this question the members of the majority made
comparatively few speeches, and even then made no seri-
ous attempt to answer the extensive arguments brought
forth by the minority."" These latter took the ground
that their opponents were attempting to deprive the south-
ern counties of their proper political influence,"' to give
Baltimore City the position of three counties,"** and that
as soon as slavery was abolished even a three-fifths rule
held no longer, but the whole population became the joint
basis of apportionment."" It was all in vain, however,
for now they only succeeded in procuring the additional
delegate for Kent. The majority were evidently not going
to lose this opportunity of settling old scores, and in addi-
tion might have urged the old excuse that it was neces-
sary to strengthen the supporters of the National Adminis-
tration in Maryland by weakening the power of their op-
ponents.
The article on the Legislative Department contained
numerous other changes, mostly in the direction of lim-
iting the power of the General Assembly to act in certain
cases."" Taking the most important in the order in which
'" Deb., iii, 1658. "" Proc, 639-42; Deb., iii, 1655-76.
'"" Deb., ii, 1032-59, 1060-78. '" Deb., ii, 1034
"^ Deb., ii, 1038. "" Deb., ii, 1041.
"" Might this not have been a result of the struggle over the
"Frederick" Legislature of 1861?
78 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [424
they occur, it will first of all be noticed that the old pro-
vision prohibiting clergymen from accepting seats in the
legislature was omitted, although Judge Chambers
strongly protested against this action on conservative
grounds/"
The regular sessions of the General Assembly had here-
tofore closed on the loth of March, now they were unlim-
ited, though special sessions could only continue thirty
days. The former pay of $4 per day was raised to $5 for
all sessions, but no member could receive more than $400
for the regular session. This was of course a distinct im-
provement on the old provision.
A number of the restrictions mentioned above were
contained in a section (32) which prohibited the Legisla-
ture from passing local or special laws in fourteen different
cases, of which those relating to assessment and collec-
tion of taxes, to interest on money, those providing for
the sale of real estate belonging to minors, giving eflfect
to informal or invalid deeds or wills, those granting di-
vorces, and those " establishing, locating or affecting the
construction of roads, and the repairing or building of
bridges " were the most important. Also the provisions
were continued which prohibited the giving of the credit
of the state to aid in works of internal improvement, and
that unsecured debts were not to be contracted, except on
the authority of the General Assembly to meet deficiencies
to the extent of $50,000, or to any amount necessary for
the defense of the state.
It was provided that laws were to be passed requiring
the stringent oath of allegiance to be taken by the " presi-
dent, directors, trustees, or agents of corporations created
or authorized by the laws of this state, teachers or super-
intendents of public schools, colleges, or other institutions
of learning; attorneys-at-law, jurors, and such other per-
sons as the General Asscmblv shall from time to time pro-
scribe." "'
'"Deb., ii, 790-6. "'Art. iii, sec. 47.
425] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 79
In regard to internal improvements it should be noted
that there was a strong sentiment in favor of selling the
state's interest in them. The report of the Committee on
the Legislative Department had contained a section pro-
viding that the General Assembly should take the neces-
sary steps to dispose of the above, and use the proceeds
for the payment of the public debt of the state, any sur-
plus to be held as a permanent fund for the support of
education."' When this section came up for consideration
in the Convention, the variety of plans and ideas presented
in regard to it, and the utter lack of any definite policy or
party lines among the members, show that the subject was
largely a new one. It had been raised by several indi-
viduals who brought before the committee the argument
that arrangements might be made by which the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal, the unproductive state stock in
which was the special object of attack, might be leased to
the preferred creditors, many of them citizens of Mont-
gomery, Frederick, Washington and Allegany counties,
who as citizens were held to have a double interest, both
in the usefulness of that particular work, and in its being
remunerative to the state,"'
The question of the sale seemed to come as a surprise
to the Convention, and though a large number expressed
themselves as favorable to the move, yet so many plans
and amendments of various sorts were offered that the
subject became involved in a veritable sea of confusion.
The state owned large amounts of both productive and un-
productive stocks, and the sentiment was entirely divided
as to whether certain parts or all of these should be dis-
posed of. The great fear seemed to be, that the Balti-
more and Ohio Railroad would gain control of the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal, and use it to discriminate in rates
against the western part of the state, and also that the
sale would ofifer a rich field for bribery and political job-
'™ Proc, 193. "* Deb., ii, 815.
80 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [426
bing. The uncertain state of the " money market " in
time of war was a potent reason urged against any action
in the matter.'" The whole question was finally referred
to a special committee of nine on July 27, with instructions
to report two days later."" A majority of six of the com-
mittee reported in favor of the sale of certain interests
according to a given method, and the reference of the sub-
ject of the sale of the remainder to a popular vote. A
minority of four members of the committee reported
against any provision for the sale of public works, urging
that at present it was inexpedient, as it would tend to
dissatisfy a large part of the people, and as it was doubtful
if any plan could command a majority of the votes of the
Convention. A number of the members had come to this
more conservative view, owing to the lack of any definite
plan as yet, though Mr, Thomas of Baltimore City, who
came originally from Allegany county, vigorously opposed
the move as detrimental to the w^estern part of the state."'
After much discussion and seemingly endless amend-
ments,'" provisions were finally adopted '" which author-
ized the Governor, Comptroller and State Treasurer con-
jointly, or any two of them, to exchange the state's inter-
est in the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad " for an equal
amount of bonds or registered debt now owing by the
state," and also to sell the interests in the other works of
internal improvement or banking corporations, but subject
to such regulations and conditions as the General As-
sembly might prescribe. There were two provisos to the
above, the first reserving from sale the interest of the
state in the Washington Branch of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, and the second requiring a ratification by the
Legislature of the sale of the interests in the Chesapeake
"" Deb., ii. 814-5, 90.1 008.
"' Proc, 346-9. '"^ Del)., ii. oCy6-70.
'™ Proc. 298-.304, 315-6. 321-2. 340-9, 391-5, 398-404; Dch., ii,
814-9. 872-3. 899-913, 962-74. II 10-25, 1 145-5.3-
"• Yeas 39, nays 25 (Proc, 402-3). See Art. iii, sees. 52-3.
427] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 81
and Ohio Canal, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, and
the Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal Companies. In ad-
dition, the Legislature was to provide, before the Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal could be sold, such laws as should
be necessary to authorize the counties of Allegany, Wash-
ington, Frederick and Montgomery or any one of them
" to create a debt by the issue of bonds or otherwise, so
as to enable them, or any of them, to become the pur-
chasers of said interest." All party lines w^ere entirely ob-
literated during the consideration of the above, and the
members voted as individuals.
Another section which was incorporated in this same
Legislative Article "" gave the General Assembly " power
to accept the cession of any territory contiguous to this
state from the states of Virginia and West Virginia, or
from the United States, with the consent of Congress, and
of the inhabitants of such ceded territory," and further
empowered the Legislature to enact the necessary laws to
divide such ceded land into counties, and otherwise make
it an integral part of the state. It seems that after West
Virginia had seceded from Virginia, there was a widespread
belief in Maryland that perhaps portions of this new state
or even the whole of it might be induced to consolidate
with Maryland. Covetous eyes had also been cast on
Loudoun County, Virginia, and also on the Eastern Shore
of that state. The provision was in fond anticipation of
events which never occurred, but was sufficient to call forth
vigorous, and, as usual, vain opposition on the part of the
minority, who " protested against the enormity which had
been committed in the attempted and pretended erection of
this State of West Virginia out of the limits of the State of
Virginia." The debate was not of much importance how-
ever, and the usual party vote soon carried the provision
through."'
In concluding the discussion of the various provisions
'*" Section ^. "' Proc, 133, 194, 209; Deb., ii, 866-8, 873-6.
29
82 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [428
incorporated in the article on the Legislative Department,
it is interesting to note that during its consideration in
the Convention two movements developed which, though
unsuccessful, show that certain members were far in ad-
vance of the thought of that day in their views on mone-
tary questions. One movement was an attack on state
banks led by Mr. Gushing of Baltimore City, one of the
most progressive members of the Convention, and the
other an effort to abolish the rigid restriction of the usury
laws. Of this latter, Mr. Belt of Prince George's was the
leading advocate.
Mr. Gushing desired to have the old provision, which
provided for the limited liability of stockholders, inspec-
tion of banks, etc.,'" so amended as to read — " The Gen-
eral Assembly shall grant no charter for banking purposes,
or renew any banking corporation now in existence." He
stated that he desired the question of currency and note
issues to be fairly met, and favored the support by Mary-
land of Secretary of the Treasury Chase's National Bank
plan, which provided for much more uniformity in the
banking institutions of the country and in their note issues.
It should be noticed that this was an anticipation, by at
least a year, of the action of the Federal Government
which laid the prohibitory tax of ten per cent on the note
issues of state banks, and drove so many of the latter to
reincorporation under national laws. Mr. Gushing's plan
received little support, and was rather treated with indif-
ference, so that gentleman withdrew his motion.'"
Early in the session, on motion of Mr. Belt, a special
committer: of five was appointed to consider and report
upon interest and usury laws.'"* This committee reported
in favor of a provision fixing the legal rate of interest at
six per centum per annum, except in cases where a differ-
ent rate might be agreed upon between contracting par-
""Art. iii, sec. 45 (Cons, of 1850-1).
'" Deb., ii, 835-45. '" Proc, 18.
429] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 83
ties, the rate agreed on or contracted for being recover-
able in all cases of private contract/"
The rate of interest prescribed in the old Constitution
was six per centum,"" and the effort of Mr. Belt and the
more progressive members of the Convention who sup-
ported him without regard to party, was to have money
treated like any other commodity — subject to the market
price. A practical turn was given to the argument by the
statement that the New York rate of seven per centum
was drawing from Maryland its available capital, and that
the provision reported would of course tend to remedy
this. Mr. Belt was ably seconded by Mr. Cushing, Mr.
Negley and others, party lines being again disregarded,
but Judge Chambers, who was usually ultra-conservative,
Mr. Sands of Howard, and numerous others opposed the
provision with the old arguments of " protection of the
laboring man," the necessity of " restraining the appetite
of the money-lender," and further reasons of the like kind.
Mr. Belt delayed final action for some time in the hope
that he might obtain from the people, especially from the
business men of Baltimore, petitions strong enough to in-
fluence sufficient votes in the Convention to carry his
measure through,"' but it was all to no purpose. He was
rewarded by only one petition, that from the Baltimore
Corn and Flour Exchange,"' and the old restriction was
reenacted. Although by a further effort he succeeded in
having this action reconsidered two days before the Con-
vention adjourned, the conservative sentiment was again
too strong for him, and the result was exactlv the same as
before.""
Another progressive change of an entirely different
character which was advocated, and which suffered a like
"' Proc, 520-1. '" Cons. 1850-1, Art. iii, sec. 49.
'"Authority of Mr. Joseph M. Cushing. "* Deb., iii, 1685.
'^ Proc, 693-700. See also Deb., iii, 1476-81, 1482-1509, 1811-26;
Frederick " Examiner," Aug. 31, 1864.
84: The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [430
fate, was the strong effort to provide for an appointed ju-
diciary. Mr. Stockbridge was the leading advocate of this
plan, and the Judiciary Committee, of which he was the
chairman, reported a system in conformity with these
ideas."" He was supported in this move by the more pro-
gressive members of both sides, but the test vote, which
was taken on the question after very little debate, showed
a vote of 51 to 19 in favor of an elective system,"" as had
been provided in the Constitution of 1850-1. The old ar-
guments of right of choice of the people, and too much
power given to the Governor if he was allowed to appoint
the judiciary, proved too strong for Mr. Stockbridge and
his supporters."'.
There had been some complaint in the state that the
courts did not sufficiently expedite business,"' and in order
to relieve this and provide for speedy justice in all cases,
the numbers of courts and Judges were generally in-
creased, and their jurisdiction w-as more clearly defined.
A decided improvement was introduced by raising the sal-
aries of Judges, though not to the extent that the commit-
tee report had provided. The term of office was increased
from ten to fifteen years. Numerous minor changes were
introduced, but they are largely of legal or professional
interest, and hence out of the province of this work.'" It
should be mentioned however, that provision was made for
all the Judges then in office to serve out the terms for
which they had been elected under the old Constitution.
The minor legal offices showed some change, as the
Justices of the Peace were now appointed by the Gover-
nor, and the Constables by the County Commissioners and
by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. These offi-
cers were formerly elected by the people. Also, the cum-
bersome system of electing two Sheriffs, one of whom
' Proc. 415-2.3. '" Proc, 514-5- '"Deb., iii, 1385-93-
' Sec Frederick " Examiner," July 6. 1864.
See Article iv of the Constitution as adopted.
431] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 85
was to serve only in case of the death or disquahfication of
the other,"" was done away with, and the more common
sense plan substituted by which only one Sheriff was to
be elected, and the Governor by appointment to fill any
vacancies.
We now come to an article which was one of the great-
est merits of the Constitution. It was entirely new, and
provided for a state system of education. For years be-
fore this time numerous attempts had been made at the
various sessions of the Legislature to inaugurate some
sort of a general educational system, but for one reason
or another these attempts had always resulted in failure.
The sentiment of the members of the Convention was
practically a unit in favor of provisions of this character,
and they were backed in this by a large majority of the
people of the state. Mr. Cushing of Baltimore City, chair-
man of the Committee on Education, submitted the unani-
mous report of that committee,"^ which was finally adopted
with changes mostly of a minor character. In its final
form it provided as follows:"" within thirty days after the
ratification of the Constitution by the people, the Gover-
nor was to appoint, subject to the confirmation of the
Senate at its first session thereafter, a State Superintendent
of Public Instruction, the term of office to be four years,
and the salary $2500 a year, with certain sums for travel-
ling and incidental expenses which were to be fixed by the
General Assembly.
This officer was to report to the General Assembly
within thirty days after the commencement of its first ses-
sion under the new Constitution, an uniform system of
free Public Schools. He was also to perform such other
duties pertaining to his office as should from time to time
be prescribed by law. The Governor of the State, the
Lieutenant-Governor; the Speaker of the House of Dele-
"^ Constitution of 1850-1, Art. iv, sec. 20.
'"' Proc, 372-3. "' Art. viii.
86 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [432
gates, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
were to form a State Board of Education, the duties
of which were to be prescribed by the General As-
sembly. There were to be School Commissioners in each
county to be appointed by the State Board for a term of
four years, to the number deemed necessary by the State
Superintendent. The General Assembly at its first ses-
sion under the new Constitution, was to provide a uni-
form system of schools, by which a free school was to be
kept open in each school district for at least six months
in each year. In case it failed to do this, the system re-
ported by the State Superintendent was to become law,
subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to future
alteration by the General Assembly. At each regular ses-
sion of the Legislature, an annual tax of ten cents on the
hundred dollars was to be levied throughout the state, the
proceeds of which were to be distributed among the coun-
ties and the city of Baltimore in proportion to their re-
spective population between the ages of five and twenty
years. No additional local taxes were to be levied without
the consent of the people aflfected. Further, there was to
be an additional annual tax of five cents on the hundred
dollars, the proceeds of which were to be invested until a
permanent School Fund of six million dollars was formed,
this r\md to remain inviolate, and the annual interest of
it disbursed for educational purposes only.'" As soon as
this Fund was formed, the ten cent tax might be discon-
tinued in whole or in part.
The Committee on Education had in mind two men for
the position of State Superintendent of Public Instruction
— Libertus Van Bokkelen of Baltimore County and Wil-
liam H. Farquhar of Montgomery County, and it was pri-
vately agreed with Governor Bradford that he was to ap-
point either one of these men. The School Fund idea
'" For school funds prior to 1865 see report of House Committee,
House Journal, 1864, pp. 92-3.
433] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 87
was taken from the school law of the state of Massachu-
setts, which had a sinking fund, and the remainder of the
report was elaborated after a consideration of all the
various state school laws/°° The report was finally adopt-
ed without much difficulty, although there was much dis-
cussion of the amount of tax to be levied, and the amount
of salary of the State Superintendent. Several members
also questioned the legality of the provision providing that
the system reported to the Legislature should go into
effect in case of the failure of that body to act in the mat-
ter, but Mr. Gushing and M. Stirling answered this by
affirming the sovereign power to provide what it pleased,
which was given to the Convention by the people.'"" Sev-
eral of the minority members attempted, in a most narrow
minded spirit, to prohibit the application of any part of the
School Fund toward educating the free negro population,
but were overwhelmingly defeated.""
As regards the organic law embodied in the Constitu-
tion, the only important facts which remain to be noted
are first, that it was provided that the Legislature might
under certain conditions organize new counties, and
second, townships were substituted for election districts
as the smallest unit of local government, their powers to
be prescribed by the Legislature.^"^ Mr. Stockbridge seems
to have been largely responsible for this change, his desire
being to introduce into Maryland, if possible, the New
England system of " Town Meetings." '""" Third and last,
three methods of amending the Constitution were pro-
vided,'"* that is to say — amendments might be submitted
to the people after three-fifths of both houses of the Gen-
eral Assembly had passed them; a convention might be
called by a two-thirds vote of each house if the people ap-
proved it at the polls; and finally, in the year 1882 and in
"" Authority of Mr. Gushing. Mr. Van Bokkelen was appointed
on November 12, 1864.
'"° Deb., ii, 1201-36, 1241-50. ""' Proc, 453-6.
=°=Art. X. ^•'^Proc., 23; Deb., i, 65. =°* Art. xi.
88 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [434
every twentieth year thereafter, the question of calUng a
Convention was to be submitted to the people. Thus we
see that the slow conservative methods provided in the
old Constitution were done away with, and the final right
of the people to change their mode of government when-
ever it pleased them so to do, was fully recognized.
It should be said, to sum up at this point, that as far as
the organic law was concerned, the new Constitution was
a decided advance toward modern methods and systems of
government, and showed distinct results of the evident
wish on the part of the Convention, to have the Consti-
tution of Maryland conform, as far as possible, to the best
features embodied in the Constitutions of the other states
of the Union.'"
We now come to a most unpopular feature of the Con-
stitution, which contributed largely to the intense opposi-
tion that was aroused against it, and which caused it to be
ratified only by a very narrow majority. This was, the
method and regulations under which it was to be submitted
to the people for their ratification.
As prescribed by the new Constitution,'"" the Governor
within five days after the adjournment of the Convention
was to issue a proclamation, calling for an election to be
held in the city of Baltimore on October 12, 1864, and in
the counties of the state on October 12th and 13th. At
this election the vote was to be by ballot, and the question
to be decided was the ratification or rejection of the Con-
stitution. But it was further provided, that the test oath
prescribed in the Constitutiofi for all future elections after
the Constitution should be adopted, was to be required of
all voters in the election on the ratification of that instru-
ment itself. Again, we have seen that the article on the
Elective Franchise required '"' the General Assembly to
" provide by law for taking the votes of soldiers in the
army of the Urfited States serving in the field." In order
Sec Dei)., I, 360, 394-5 ; i>. 1034-5, 1056, 1267, 1317-8, etc.
Art. xii, sees. 8-10. ""' Art. i, sec. 2. Sec page 71.
435] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 89
not to lose this vote in the ratification of the Constitution
and in the regular national and state elections of Novem-
ber, 1864, special provisions were inserted '"' prescribing
rules and regulations for the soldiers' vote, which were
to remain in force till the Legislature should provide by
law, as required above, some other mode of taking the
same. All returns of the vote were to be made to the
Governor, who was made sole judge of their correctness,
and whether or not they were cast according to the pro-
visions of the new Constitution.
Naturally the minority hotly objected to these provi-
sions, being opposed to this method of virtually putting
the Constitution into operation before it was adopted by
thus prescribing the mode of voting upon itself. The
majority answered that the people in their sovereign ca-
pacity had by the election of the previous April made the
Convention Bill the supreme law of the land, and that in
this matter the Convention would be acting according to
the provision of that instrument that the new Constitution
" should be submitted to the legal and qualified voters of
the State, for their adoption or rejection, at such time, in
such manner, and subject to such rules and regulations " as
the Convention might prescribe. The majority further
claimed that the test oath only required the same qualifi-
cations as those prescribed by the Convention Bill in the
clause following the above, which provided that the " pro-
visions hereinbefore contained for the qualification of
voters," etc., should be " applicable to the election to be
held under this section." The minority answered that the
" rules and regulations " the Convention might prescribe
could only be those under which the previously legal and
qualified voters were to vote. They also asked, why there
was any need of submitting the Constitution to the people
at all, if the Convention had such absolute power under the
Convention Bill. They held, further, that the objection-
able provisions deprived certain citizens of their right to
''" Art. xii, sees. 11-16.
90 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [43G
vote, and introduced a perfectly new class of voters hith-
erto unknown to the laws. The majority answer to this
last was that those citizens barred from voting had already
been practically disfranchised by laws of the National Gov-
ernment, and by decisions of the various courts, and that
the soldiers were not a new class of voters, but merely
citizens exercising their right of franchise under new con-
ditions. The entire debate was to a great extent along
these lines, and was sustained with exceptional brilliancy
by the minority members, Mr. Miller of Anne Arundel in
particular making a speech which showed great power of
logical thought and analytical reasoning. As usual, the
result was foreordained, and the provisions passed by the
usual party vote.'"* An attempt of the minority to insert
a provision providing for new elections in those districts in
which there might be military interference was promptly
voted down.*'"
From the entire absence at the time of the April elec-
tion, as far as we can see, of any such extreme views as
to the proper construction of the Convention Bill, it is safe
to judge that the people of the state had no idea of the
extent to which these measures would finally be carried.
The majority members of the Convention, however, with
rare acuteness saw their opportunity, and were quick to
avail themselves of it. Their action, to say the least, was
clearly revolutionary, and its justification or condemna-
tion at the present day depends upon individual ideas as
to the legitimacy of such measures in time of war, and
whether, as seen in the final results, the end justified the
means. .It only remains to add at this point, that the final
draft of the new Constitution was adopted by the Conven-
tion on September 6, by the party vote of 53 yeas to 26
nays, 17 members being absent and not voting.'" After
the usual closing remarks by the President, the Conven-
tion adjourned.
*" For above see Proc, 602-4, 611-3, 670-81; Deb., iii, 1708-19,
1724-56, 1758-71. "" Proc, 672-3. "' Proc. 770-1.
III.
In accordance with the eighth section of the twelfth ar-
ticle of the new Constitution, Governor Bradford on Sep-
tember 9, 1864, issued a proclamation calling an election
on October 12 and 13 for the purpose of ascertaining the
sense of the people in regard to the adoption or rejection
of the document. Copies of the Constitution were imme-
diately distributed throughout the state, and a fierce polit-
ical campaign was entered upon in regard to it. The radical
Union men very generally approved of the work of the
Convention, but many of the more conservative citizens,
including some of those who had hitherto supported the
Unconditional Union party, came out publicly in open op-
position and used their influence to prevent the adoption
of the Constitution. Hon. Reverdy Johnson is perhaps
the most striking instance of this latter class. He
strongly condemned the requirement of the test oath in
the vote on the Constitution, and declared that the Con-
vention in requiring it exceeded its powers by thus acting
in a legislative capacity. The Democrats of the state re-
ceived the Constitution with a storm of indignation, and
at once entered vigorously upon an attempt to defeat it
in the coming election. This movement was doubtless
precipitated by the action of the thirty-five minority mem-
bers of the Convention, who immediately after the ad-
journment of that body, and before they had returned to
their homes, drew up and published^ a unanimous pro-
test, addressed " To the Voters of Maryland," in which
they denounced the Convention and the new Constitution
in the strongest terms. After arguing that the period of
a civil war was not the time in which to make any or-
' See " Sun," Sept. 10, 1864.
93 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [438
ganic changes in the Constitution or system of govern-
ment, and urging the " violent partisan measures " of the
majority members as proof of this, they proceeded to spe-
cifically condemn numerous provisions of the Constitu-
tion, in particular those providing for emancipation, for
paramount allegiance to the United States Government,
and also the various test oaths, the increase in the legis-
lative representation of Baltimore City, the soldiers' vote,
and the manner of submitting the document to the vote of
the people. They further said — " Not only is this most
wanton violation of your rights aggravated by a contempt-
uous refusal to allow the least shadow of compensation,
but every possible means have been used to extend and
perpetuate the injury. The authors of these outrages,
apparently sensible that at some future day, a returning
sense of justice might succeed the mad fanaticism of the
hour, and reverse the iniquitous decrees they had pro-
nounced, have actually assumed the prerogative of judg-
ing for all time to come, for the future generations of the
people, and the future Legislatures of the state. The fiat
has gone forth that no future Legislature shall have power
to make compensation. The finances of the state may be
ample, the people of the state may desire to repair, to some
extent at least, this enormous injury, the Legislature may
unanimously respond to this sentiment, but no, the lu-
natics of 1864 have manacled their hands, they have no
constitutional power to do justice. Is the equal to such
enormity to be found in the history of any civilized region
of the world? We fearlessly answer, no! Other people
have manumitted negro slaves. Most of the states north
of us have manumitted negro slaves. Did any one of
these do this thing as the Convention has done it? Most
certainly not."
They closed by characterizing the Constitution as a
" wholesale robbery and destruction perpetrated by those
whose cardinal duty was to provide for the security of the
persons, the protection of the property and the preserva-
439] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 93
tion of the inalienable rights of all the citizens of the
state."
Certain citizens of Cecil County presented a memorial
to Governor Bradford objecting to the test oath and ap-
pealing to him to instruct the Judges of Election to disre-
gard it, and also to disregard it himself by announcing
that he would not count the votes of any county in which
the oath had been administered to voters. Governor
Bradford, on September 21, 1864, wrote a letter to Mr, D.
R. jMagruder, the chairman of the committee which pre-
sented the above petition, and declined to take such action
as beyond his jurisdiction, maintaining that his duties were
merely ministerial. He also defended the action of the Con-
vention on the ground that the body had plenary powers,
and cited the Convention of 1850-1 as a precedent.
Mr. George Vickers, a prominent citizen of Chester-
town, wrote several letters to the Governor advocating
the same line of action on his part, and in reply Governor
Bradford again took a like stand as to limitation of his
powers.'
The Democrats, who were now becoming better organ-
ized throughout Maryland, in their State Convention which
met in Baltimore on September 29, 1864, by a unanimous
vote passed resolutions offered by Mr. Clarke of Prince
George's in which the new Constitution was condemned,
and its defeat at the polls was urged.' Many political
meetings were held throughout the state by both parties,
and the various newspapers contained numerous articles
for and against the Constitution, many of them contribu-
ted by the foremost men of the state. On the other
hand, the following from the Centreville (Queen Anne's
County) Observer * may be taken as an instance of the atti-
' This correspondence was made public during the first week of
October. See " American," October 5, 1864.
° " Sun " and " American " of September 30, 1864.
* Quoted in " American," October 6, 1864.
94 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [440
tude of the more extreme pro-slavery Democrats. In op-
posing the Constitution, this paper said — " Would to God
we could picture sufficiently plain the importance of the
issue now pending in this state. We . . . leave the reader
to decide for himself whether he will perpetually rob his
neighbour of his happiness, or whether he will vote against
the inhuman, illegal and unjust instrument, and thereby
declare himself a friend to the oppressed. . . . Should this
infamous instrument be adopted, a perpetual line of demar-
cation will undoubtedly be drawn both in political, social
and business life. No man who entertains any regard for
his liberty, will, after the adoption of this Constitution, aid
in the support of those who vote for it, and for his oppres-
sion."
But the Union party was none the less active in its sup-
port of the new Constitution, and the state was vigorously
canvassed by Montgomery Blair, Thomas Swann, Henry
Winter Davis, William T. Purnell, Archibald Stirling, Jr.,
Henry Stockbridge, John V. L. Findlay, and other promi-
nent men of that party.
The arguments advanced by both sides in this campaign
were largely a repetition of those brought forward by the
Union and Democratic members of the Convention in
their discussion of the provisions in regard to submitting
the Constitution to the people."
Throughout the entire movement leading to the Consti-
tution, President Lincoln had been a close and interested
observer, and had given it his constant personal encour-
agement.' Being requested to aid in this final contest, on
October- 10 he wrote a letter to Henry W. Hoffman,^
which was read that evening at a Union mass-meeting in
Baltimore. In this letter he stated that ho would be
" gratified exceedingly if the good people of the state
[would], by their votes, ratify the new Constitution."
* Sec pages 89-Qo.
* Nicolay and Hay, " Life of Lincoln." viii, 465. ' Ibid., p, 467.
441] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 95
The election took place as ordered, on October 12-13.
There seems to have been little or no disorder or military
interference at the polls, although it was charged that in
some districts gross frauds were perpetrated." These
could hardly have been very extensive on either side, as
recourse would undoubtedly have been had to the courts
in the same manner as was done in the case of the sol-
diers' vote. The result of the regular state vote showed
that the Constitution had been defeated by an adverse ma-
jority of 1995." Of course everything now depended on
the result of the soldiers' vote, the returns of which were
slowly coming in. The opponents of the Constitution now
attempted to throw out this latter vote, and thus insure
the final defeat of the document. On October 24, 1864,
an application was made to the Superior Court of Balti-
more City (Judge Robert N. Martin) on behalf of Samuel
G. Miles for a mandamus directed to Governor Bradford,
commanding him to exclude all votes cast at any place
outside of the state of Maryland from the count upon the
question of the adoption of the Constitution. The peti-
tioner stated that he was a qualified voter of Maryland
according to the existing Constitution, but had been un-
lawfully excluded from voting by the Judges of Election
because he refused to take the oath illegally prescribed ac-
cording to the new Constitution. He further averred that
the soldiers had not been subjected to the oath according
to the requirements of the new Constitution, and hence
their votes should not be counted if the above action of
the Judges of Election was sustained. Also by this same
document the petitioner stated that he would be unlawfully
deprived of his property in slaves without any compensa-
tion therefor. The court dismissed the petition on the
""Sun," Oct. 13; Frederick "Examiner," Oct. 19; Denton
"Journal" (quoted in "Sun" of Oct. 24); "American," Oct. 29.
See also Scharf, " History of Maryland," iii, 596.
' See appendix for detailed vote.
96 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [442
same day, on the ground that no sufficient reason was
given for its interposition. From this decision an appeal
was at once taken to the Court of Appeals. Prior to this,
the same petition had been presented to the Circuit Court
of Anne Arundel county (Judge William H. Tuck), had
been likewise dismissed and an appeal taken. Further,
pending these proceedings still another petition, in l)ehalf
of E. F. Chambers and others, was presented to the Cir-
cuit Court of lialtimore County (Judge John H. Price) and
also to the same Anne Arundel Court, praying for an in-
junction to restrain the Governor from counting the sol-
diers' vote. It was dismissed by both courts and likewise
appealed.
This made four appeals, and hearing on them was be-
gun in the Court of Appeals on October 2y, 1864. After
disposing of some technicalities as to the eligibility of cer-
tain Judges to sit in the trial of these cases on account of
their owning slaves, the case was argued by I. Nevitt
Steele, William Schley '" and T. S. Alexander on behalf of
the appellants, and by Henry Stockbridge and Henry Win-
ter Davis for the other side. On October 29, 1864, the
court, through Hon. Richard J. Bowie, the Chief Justice,
gave its decision unanimously sustaining Judge iMartin in
his order dismissing the first case."
While these proceedings were in progress, application
was made to Governor Bradford for permission to can-
vass the returns of the soldiers' vote made to him, of which
he was sole judge, and to show cause why certain of these
votes should be rejected and not counted. The Governor
consented, and the votes and returns were canvassed in
detail, William Schley arguing the question against ad-
mitting tluiu, and Archibald Stirling, Jr., and Alexander
'" Not the member of the Convention. The latter was Frederick
Schley, of Frederick county.
" Deb., iii, 1915-9: 22 Md. Reports. 170. Miles vs. Bradford.
Also sec contemporary newspapers.
443] The Maryland Constitution of 1864. 97
Randall in their favor. Governor Bradford gave his de-
cision on the numerous questions raised as to their
legality, in a lengthy opinion, dated October 28, 1864, and
published simultaneously with his proclamation declaring
the final result of the total vote on the Constitution. The
objections raised by Mr. Schley were mainly on the ground
of technicalities, as to requiring the oath of the soldiers
who voted, as to the paper on which the ballots were
printed, as to counting the votes of certain companies not
attached to any regiment, etc.
Out of the total of 3186 votes cast by the soldiers, 285
votes " for," and 5 " against " the Constitution were re-
jected, and 2633 votes " for " and 263 " against " it were ac-
cepted. Adding these latter numbers to the vote of the
state, it made a total of 30,174 for the Constitution, and
29,799 against it, leaving the small majority of 375 in its
favor, an exceedingly close result in a total vote of nearly
60,000. On October 29, 1864, Governor Bradford issued
his proclamation declaring the new Constitution adopted,
and causing it to go into effect on November i, 1864.
It should be observed that the overwhelming prepon-
derance of the favorable vote on the part of the soldiers
does not necessarily presuppose fraud or unfairness on
the part of either the civil or military authorities. Men
thrown together in the camp, or standing side by side on
the field of battle would naturally be largely of one mind
on political matters. This was seen in the case of the
votes of the soldiers of various other states at this period.
Also, men who were offering their lives in defense of their
principles w^ould not be apt, from motives of legal expe-
diency, to hesitate in regard to measures considered as
calculated to advance their cause."
We thus come to the end of the movement which
" The War Department issued at Washington on Oct. i, 1864,
" General Order, No. 263," intended to insure, as far as possible,
freedom and fairness in the vote of the soldiers of the various
states.
30
98 The Maryland Constitution of 1864. [-444
occupied the thought of the people of the state during
nearly two years preceding the close of the war. It was
largely the result of a long-existent feeling of the need of
reform in the social and political life of Maryland, and
although precipitated and somewhat changed in character
by the influence of the Civil War, would undoubtedly have
been successful at some later day. In this latter case it
would likely have been less extreme, yet perhaps more
thorough, in its results, and hardly would have suffered
the effects of the inevitable reaction which in the year
1867 not only abrogated the objectionable features of the
Constitution of 1864, but rejected some of its greatest
merits as well. But the fact that these merits and defects
once existed in the organic law and government of the
state, will not be forgotten by the more thoughtful people
of Maryland, but will serve as a valuable experience to
guide them in many hitherto untried paths of reform.
Furthermore, if the justification of a higher national ne-
cessity is denied the Union men of 1863-4, their courage
shown in the abolition of slavery in the state of Maryland
deserves the thanks and appreciation of their posterity.
APPENDIX
Vote on the Constitution, October 12-13, 1864:
For Against
Allegany county 1,839 964
Anne Arundel county 281 1,360
Baltimore city 9-779 2,053
Baltimore county 2,001 1,869
Carroll county 1,587 1,690
Caroline county 471 423
Calvert county 57 634
Cecil county 1,611 1,611
Charles county 13 978
Dorchester county 449 1,486
Frederick county 2.908 1,916
Harford county 1,083 1,671
Howard county 462 583
Kent county 289 1,246
Montgomery county 4-22 1,367
Prince George's county 149 1.293
Queen Anne's county 220 i,577
Somerset county 464 2,066
St. IMary's county ,99 1,078
Talbot county 430 1,020
Washington county 2,441 985
Worcester county 486 1,666
27,541 29,536
Soldiers' vote 2,633 263
30,174 29,799
29.799
Majority 375
LIFE OF COMMISSARY JAMES BLAIR
FOUNDER OF
WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE
Series XIX No. lo.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
(Edited 1882-1901 by H. B. Adams.)
J. M. VINCENT, Editor.
History is past Politics and Politics are present History.— /"r**»Ka«
LIFE OF COMMISSARY JAMES BLAIR
FOUNDER OF
WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE
By DANIEL ESTEN MOTLEY
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
PUBLISHED MONTHLY
OCTOBER, 1901
Copyright 1901 , by
JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
THB PBIIinKNWALD COMPANY
BALTIMOHB, MO., V. S. A.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I.— Blair's Religious Work 9
Birthplace and Education 9
Blair, Minister at Henrico 10
At Jamestown 10
At Bruton Church 11
His Sermons 13
His appointment as Commissary 14
Government of the Church 15
Condition of the Clergy 16
Hindrances in Blair's Work 17
Efforts to better the Clergy 18
Clerical Conventions 19
Efforts to discipline the Clergy 20
Efforts to get more Ministers 31
Blair's life and example 23
Results of his religious work 23
CHAPTER II. — Blair as the Founder of William and Mart
College 24
Blair's desire for a College 24
Early efforts to establish a College 24
Blair moves for a College 26
Is sent to England to get a Charter 27
Difficulties in obtaining a Charter 37
Charter granted 29
Organization of the College 30
Obstacles in erecting the Building 31
Teaching begun 33
Causes of slow growth 34
Destruction of the first College Building 37
Rebuilding 37
Indian Education and the Indian Building 37
Gifts 39
Scholarships 39
Full Faculty of 1729 40
Work of the College 40
The Debt of the South to Blair 41
Contents. [452
PAQK
CHAPTER III. — Blair'3 Connection vtith the Government . . 43
Blair a Member of the Council 43
Functions of the Council 43
Relations of Commissary and Governor 43'
Governor Andros and Blair 44
Charjjes against Andros 45
Andros removed 46
Governor Nicholson and Blair 46
Charges against Nicholson 49
Nicholson removed 51
Governor Spotswood and Blair 52
Spotswood and the Burgesses and Council 52
Point in Dispute between Spotswood and Blair 53
Spotswood removed 54
Close of Blair's Life 54
Inscription on his Tombstone 56
Appendix 56
PREFACE
The writer is greatly indebted to President Lyon G.
Tyler, for the use of old college papers and letters of the
presidents and professors. The numerous papers and letters
of President Blair and Professor Inglis, were placed at my
disposal and have been of great service in determining the
origin of the college, and the construction of the building.
Some of these have been printed from time to time in the
William and Mary College Quarterly, but are for the most
part unpublished.
LIFE OF COMMISSARY JAMES BLAIR
CHAPTER I.
BLAIR'S RELIGIOUS WORK.
Of the early life of James Blair, very little is known.
He was born in Scotland in the year 1656, and clearly showed
his origin by his characteristic, hard Scotch nature,
strength of moral character and his indomitable courage.
He received his early education in Edinburgh and gradu-
ated at Edinburgh University with the degree of Master
of Arts in 1673. Soon after his graduation he was bene-
ficed in the Episcopal Church in Scotland, and for several
years was rector of Cranston parish in the diocese of
Edinburgh.^ He served his church with such " diligence,
care and gravity " that he won the admiration of the
Bishop of the Edinburgh diocese and when he left Scotland
received from him a recommendation of the highest order.*
Young Blair went to England in the latter part of the reign
of Charles the Second. There he met Dr. Compton, the
Bishop of London, and " the energy and zeal of Blair " soon
attracted that prelate's further attention.'
The Bishop of London seeing in Blair a power for good,
spoke to him of the need of ministers in the American
colonies and prevailed upon him to go to Virginia as a
missionary. The religious condition of the colony, and es-
pecially the odium into which the clergy had fallen, were
* Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, p. 247.
' Ibid.
*J. S. M. Anderson's History of the Colonial Church, Vol. ii,
p. 384.
10 Life of Commissary James Blair. [456
not at all enticing to the better ministers of England. It
was hard to get any of them to go there.* Again the
livings of the churches in \'irginia were managed in such
a precarious way that it was not certain that a minister
could get a necessary support by his profession. Ander-
son, the English historian of the Colonial Church, in speak-
ing of Blair, says: " Nothing can be imagined more dis-
couraging than the field of duty which there awaited him." '
Notwithstanding these hindrances, which we to-day are
too apt to underestimate. Dr. Blair decided to venture,
and in 1685 sailed for Virginia. He immediately went
to Henrico City, which both in importance and interest
stood next to Jamestown. Excepting the efforts made at
the Falls of the James River, at Nansemond and Hampton,
Henrico was next to Jamestown the oldest settlement in
Virginia, having been planted in 161 1 by Sir Thomas Dale
and Rev. William Whitaker. Dr. Blair soon after his
arrival was accepted as minister of Henrico parish and in-
ducted into it." He preached there for nine years until he
moved to Jamestown, in 1694, in order to be nearer Middle
Plantation, at which place he was establishing a college.
He became minister of the Jamestown Church in 1694 and
remained pastor there for sixteen years. He became at-
tached to the people there, and nothing but duty calling
him elsewhere caused him to leave.' Some time during
the early part of his ministry Blair was married.' His
wife was the daughter of Benjamin Harrison, of " Wake-
field," Surry County.'
In 1710, Rev. Solomon Whately, the rector of Bruton
Church, Williamsburg, having died, the vestrymen called
* Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, p. 335.
* Anderson's History of the Colonial Church, Vol. ii, p. 384.
* Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, p. 42.
' Qiurch Review, Vol. viii, p. 606, or the vestry book of Bruton
Church.
If the date is known, it has not been poRsible to ascertain it.
'Virginia Magazine of History, Vol. iv, p. 161.
457] Blair's Religions Work. 11
a meeting for the purpose of employing a minister. After
a brief consideration of a few prominent candidates, " by
the Majority of Votes, the Rev. James Blair was elected
minister thereof." '" The church wardens informed Dr.
Blair that he had been called to the Bruton Church. Here
is inserted a part of Dr. Blair's letter, addressed to the
vestry of Bruton Church before his election. It may briefly
tell the cause of his leaving Jamestown :
" December 4th, 1710.
" Gentlemen:
..... It is true, I have so many obligations to ye Par-
ish of James City, that nothing but the urgent Necessity
of health, often impaired by such long Winter Journeys,
and a fear that as age and infirmaties increase, I shall not
be able to attend that Service (being at such a distance) so
punctually as I have hitherto done, could have induced me
to entertain anything as of leaving them." "
Dr. Blair entered at once upon his duties in connec-
tion with the church at Williamsburg and continued his
ministry there as long as he lived. Williamsburg had
been known in former years as Middle Plantation from
the fact of its lying midway between James and York
Rivers. But, in 1700, when Lieutenant-Governor Nichol-
son moved the seat of government from Jamestown be-
cause of the damage to that town by fire and the unhealth-
iness of the place, he planned a large town at Middle Plan-
tation. The new capital was named Williamsburg in honor
of King William III." By the time Dr. Blair became rector
there, in 1710, the town, with its beautiful location and
broad and straight streets, with William and Mary Col-
lege and the capitol, was a centre of attraction to all
parts of Virginia. Many of its inhabitants were courtly
" Church Review, Vol. viii, pp. 591, 592.
" Church Review, Vol. viii, p. 606, or the vestry book of Bruton
Church.
" Virginia State Papers, Vol. i, p. 7^.
12 Life of Commissary James Blair. [458
and refined, and during college commencements and the
sessions of the Burgesses the place is said to have pre-
sented on a small scale the scene of a court in the mother
country. At the time Dr. Blair was called to Bruton
Church its parish was ten miles square and its members
included the most distinguished men of the colony." Bru-
ton or Middle Plantation Parish was three quarters of a
century old at that time. It is mentioned in the acts of
the " Grand Assembly" as far back as February 17, 1644,
but it was established several years before then," for the
York Records mention it at an earlier time. It once con-
sisted of two parishes, the Harrop and the Middle Planta-
tion. In April, 1658, Harrop and Middle Plantation
parishes w-ere incorporated into one, which was to be
known as the parish of Middletown." Marston parish
was joined to that of Middletown in 1674, and the united
parishes took the name " Bruton Parish." " The deri-
vation of the name Bruton is not known, but it is thought
by John C. McCabe and Dr. Lyon G. Tyler to have been
called Bruton in honor of Thomas Ludwell, or of Sir Wil-
liam Berkeley, the Governor, who were from Bruton, Som-
erset County, England.
When Dr. Blair took charge of the work at Bruton
Church he found its communicants, among whom was Gov-
ernor Spotswood, making preparations for erecting a new
building. He immediately entered heartily into the pro-
ject, and presented to the vestrymen the Governor's plan,
encouraging the undertaking with means as well as with
words. The new church building was to be seventy-
five feet long, twenty-eight feet wide, and to have two
wings twenty-two feet in width, and walls twenty-three feet
high constructed of brick. Governor Spotswood agreed
" Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, p. 299.
'* Hening's Statutes, Vol. i, p. 317.
" Hening's Statutes, Vol. i, p. 498.
" Yf)rk Records, William and Mary College Quarterly, Vol. iii,
p. 170.
459] Blair's Religious Work. 13
to put up twenty-two feet of its length at his own expense.
The General Assembly contributed means for the two
wings. By the end of 171 5 the spacious building was
practically finished. The ground plan fonned a Greek cross,
and the same church, except for some changes in the size and
interior adornments, still stands at old Williamsburg.
Dr. Blair preached at his church every Sunday morning.
On Sunday evenings lectures were given. Rev. Hugh
Jones, M. A., lectured there some years. Although Dr.
Blair had three other important offices to fill, besides that
of minister, yet he was never neglectful of his church.
Whenever he took a trip to England, as he frequently did,
he was particular to see that his church was supplied with
preaching during his absence, and often refused salary
that it might go toward supplying his pulpit. " He was
much beloved and respected and especially in his own par-
ish and among his nearest neighbors who knew him
best." " For thirty years he continued to serve Bruton
Church.
Dr. Blair's preaching was plain, strong and especially
practical for that time. His audiences were composed of
the elite of the colony. His sermons were always forcible
denunciations of all forms of sin.'' In his work as min-
ister he wrote four volumes of sermons on " Our Savior's
Divine Sermons on the Mount." There are one hundred
and seventeen sermons in the volumes and each volume
contains about five hundred pages. They were first pub-
lished in England in 1722, A new edition was published
in 1740.'° They are interesting in that they are among
the very first contributions to American religious literature.
Four volumes are in the library of William and Mary Col-
lege, to which they were presented in " i860 by Bishop
Meade." Dr. Blair's purpose in writing these sermons
was to arouse the people to " a more diligent consideration
Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, p. 150.
Blair's Sermons. '" Ibid.
14 Life of Commissary James Blair. [460
and practice of Christian Morals," and bring about a " Re-
vival of the true Spirit of Christianity." '" The character
of the sermons is well described in the words of Dr. Daniel
Waterland, who wrote the preface of the new edition: "As
to the Subject here made Choice of it is the highest and the
noblest that could be, ■:';,::. our Lord's Divine Sermons on
the Mount: And as it is here explained with good Judg-
ment, so it appears likewise to be pressed with due Foree;
in a clear and easy, but masculine Style, equally fitted to
the Capacities of coinnwn Christians, and to the improved
Understandings of the Knowing and Judicious." " Of
them, Bishop Meade says: " As an accurate commentary
on that most blessed portion of the Scripture, I should
think it can never have been surpassed.""
For many years previous to Blair's arrival in Virginia
the clergy and others had complained of the need of a
bishop of Virginia, who might discipline the ministers and
raise the religious condition to a higher and more respecta-
ble plane." They thought the sole remedy lay in the ap-
pointment of a bishop. It was hard to find a man equal to
that ofificc, but Dr. Blair, " by his regular conversation,
exemplary Conduct, and unwearied Labors in the Work
of the Ministry "...." did good Service to Religion,
and gained to himself a good Report amongst all: So that
.... Bishop Compton, being well apprized of his true
and great Worth, made choice of him, about the year 1689
as his Commissary for Virginia."'* He was the first to hold
that oflfice in the colony of Virginia. Dr. Temple, previous
to this time, had done the work of a Commissary in some re-
spects, but had never been appointed as such. The comniis-
saryship was " a very weighty and creditable post, the high-
" Blair's .Sermons, Vol. i, Preface, p. 22.
" Blair's .Sermons, Vol. i, Preface, p. 7.
" Meade's Old Churches and Families, Vol. i, p. 155.
" Anderson's History of the Colonial Church, Vol. ii, pp. 356,
358.
** Blair's Sermons, Vol. i, Preface, p. 2.
461] Blair's Religious Work. 15
est office in the Church " in Virginia." The duty of the
Commissary consisted in visiting the parishes, correcting
the lives of the clergy, and keeping them orderly."" Dr.
Blair, as Commissary, called conventions of the preachers,
presided at trials, and pronounced sentences when any one
of the preachers was proved guilty of crime or misconduct.
With respect to the clergy he exercised about all the func-
tions of a bishop except ordination and the probate of
wills. No meeting of the clergy treating of ecclesiastical
matters was to be held without the Commissary. He never
attempted to set up a court for the laity. It must be here
remarked that the Governor of Virginia was the king's
ordinary, by virtue of which office it was his duty to induct
ministers into parishes when they should be presented by
the vestrymen in the name of the parishioners." He had
the power of both presentation and induction, if the vestry-
men did not present a minister to him in the space of six
months from the time the church became vacant. It was
the duty of the Governor to suspend or silence any man he
should find preaching without having been ordained by
some bishop of England or if he should be leading a scan-
dalous life."
Twelve men in each parish, known as vestrymen, were
elected by the parishioners at its beginning and any vacan-
cies caused by death or otherwise were filled by the choice
of the vestry. According to the law it was the duty of the
vestrymen to proportion " the levies and assessments for
building and repairing the churches and chapels, provisions
for the poor, maintenance of the minister, and such other
necessary duties for the more orderly management of all
parochial affairs." They employed the minister and ac-
" Blair's Sermons, Vol. i, Preface p. 2.
^ Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, p. 250. Anderson's
History of the Colonial Church, Vol. ii, p. 383.
" Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia, pp. 243, 244.
** Perry's Historical Collection, Virginia. Laws of Virginia,
p. 3. Hening's Statutes, Vol. iii, p. 44. Perry, p. 243.
" Hening's Statutes, Vol. ii, p. 44. Perry, p. 242.
16 Life of Commissary James Blaii'. [462
cording to the rules of the church should have presented
him for induction, but the fact that they rarely did this
was the cause of much disturbance. Out of their number
two church wardens were chosen yearly, whose duties may
be summed up in a general way under three heads: First,
The church wardens acted as censors for the church in
reporting all swearing, sabbath-breaking, drunkenness and
other " abominable sins," to the court held in December
and April. Second, They kept the church building in re-
pair and saw that the means for the sacrament were pre-
pared. Third, They collected the minister's salary and
presented to the vestry an account of all the disbursements
and receipts.'" The salary of the preacher, according to
a law passed by the General Assembly of Virginia in 1696,
was sixteen thousand pounds of tobacco. This was gener-
ally considered equal to one hundred pounds sterling in
sweet-scented tobacco and eighty in lower grades, but as
a matter of fact it ranged from one hundred and forty to
one hundred and sixty pounds sterling, according to the
grade of the tobacco. Five per cent was deducted for tiie
collection of the minister's salary.
At the time Dr. Blair was appointed Commissary the
religious condition of the colony was at a low ebb." The
clergy was much demoralized." It will not do to make
sweeping statements in regard to the clerical morality of
that day, for the better class was probably in the majority.
The preachers were sometimes unjustly treated. There is
evidence that some of them were truly religious and devoted
to their work. The precarious hold of the clergy upon their
livings begot in them a spirit of indifference to duty." The
most common sin among them was drunkenness, and the
things belonging thereto, such as profane language, quarrel-
"' Ilening's Statutes, Vol. ii, pp. 51, 52.
" Perry, pp. 15, 16, 30: Hawks' Ecclesiastical History, Virginia,
pp. 86. 87.
" Perry, pp. 15, 30, 31, 252, 363. Hawks, pp. 87-90.
" Perry, p. 15. Hawks, pp. 89, 90.
463] Blair's Religions Work. 17
ing and neglect of duty. This condition of the clergy is not
to be looked at by itself, for they, to a great degree, were
children of their age. The evil habit of drinking was com-
mon from Massachusetts to the utmost extent of the south-
ern colonies. The life of the people reacted upon the
clergy as well as the life of the clergy upon the people.
Again, the preachers for Virginia had to be obtained from
England and it was difficult, for reasons that will be
presently shown, to get men of great ability and character
to come to the colony as missionaries. The best of them
had good work and livings in England, so naturally the
greater part of the preachers who came over were of an
inferior order. The demand in the colonies for ministers
was great, and the leading bishops of England, although
they had the religious welfare of Virginia at heart, made a
mistake in thinking that men of ordinary ability would do
for a new country; for whereas if able men are needed
anywhere it is in fields where the paths have not been
marked out, where a standard has not been set, but where
they must stand alone and create a standard by the sheer
force of their own characters. Both this great demand,
and the misunderstanding of the condition of the country,
played their parts in contributing men for ministers whose
characters were not above reproach and whose intellectual
abilities were of a common order. The sinful and ugly
conduct of a part of the clergy lowered the whole in the
eyes of the people, and the church was not able to do the
good which it ought to have done. These were the condi-
tions and this the class of preachers that the Commissary
had to deal with.
In his efforts to better the clergy. Dr. Blair labored under
difficulties which deserve special mention. Probably the
greatest natural hindrance arose from the fact that he
was a Scotchman. Many preachers had a prejudice against
him on that ground alone." These spoke of him as " one
*' Perry, pp. 31, 37. College Papers.
32
18 Life of Commissary James Blair. [464
Scot hireling." Yet every page of contemporary liistory
of the time shows there was no man in Virginia whose
character and mental ability was equal to that of Blair for
filling the office of Commissary. A second incidental ob-
stacle was found in the enemies he had created. He was a
member of the Council, Judge of the High Court and
President of William and Mary College, as well as Com-
missary and preacher, and by his earnest activity in these
offices came in connection with all sorts of men, some of
them became hostile to him. His troubles with the gov-
ernors caused many of the clergy to be opposed to him.
While Dr. Blair, being human, made errors, yet had he
been perfect he would have made enemies, for he had to
deal with officials, and others who were acting from self-
interest and policy. A third unavoidable hindrance was the
lack of a sufficient number of preachers for the churches.
There were not enough to supply the parishes, so there
was no such thing as making choice. A few years after
Dr. Blair was made Commissary there were fifty parishes
in Virginia and only twenty-two preachers all told."
We have now briefly stated the government of the
church, the condition of the clergy at the tin^c Dr. Blair
became Commissary, 1689, and the hindrances under which
he had to labor. His endeavors to better the clergy and
the religious condition of Virginia, in general, may be
spoken of under four heads: (i) by admonition and in-
struction to the ministers, for which purpose he usually
called a convention of them; (2) by efforts to get more
preachers from England; (3) by educating men in Virginia
for the ministry. This will be spoken of in the following
chapter and must be taken into account when estimating
the good Dr. Blair accomplished for the clergy and the
colony; (4) by his own example.
That he might get all the preachers together for
encouragement and admonition, the Commissary called
* Perry, p. 11.
465] Blair's Religious Work. 19
general conventions. At first these assemblies were held
yearly. But when political factions arose among the
clergy in regard to the governors, it became difficult to
get them together, so the conventions were held only
on certain occasions, as at the accession of a king, or
of a bishop of London, or the appointing of a governor.
The Commissary presided over the convention. One
of the preachers was chosen as clerk of the meeting.
On convening, the Commissary preached a sermon, then
delivered any special charge to the ministers he wished,
and read such letters as he might have from the Bishop of
London or from the Governor addressed to the clergy.
Then the convention was resolved into a free conference,
so that any minister might propose anything he wished for
the good of the church."
In these assemblies the lives of the clergy were inquired
into and efforts were made to correct any evils existing
in them. The whole religious situation was often dis-
cussed. Occasionally, dififerences of opinion created a
storm of discussion. Many papers were presented in these
conventions and flashes of satire and sarcasm show that
Virginia had some ministers of no mean intellectual ability.
It also appears that the American spirit of religious free-
dom sometimes brooded over these clerical assemblies
long before the days of Thomas Jefferson. The conven-
tions often lasted two days, holding sessions morning,
afternoon and night. The proceedings of some of these
meetings are intensely interesting, and if the scope of this
work allowed it, they might be entered here with both in-
terest and profit. Dr. Blair preached many able sermons
to the clergy and gave them much fatherly and Chris-
tian advice. But his preaching and admonition did not
always do as much good as they should have done, be-
cause of the prejudice of some of the clergy and the hard-
ened corrupt character of others. Their preconceived no-
'° Perry, pp. 144-179, 199-217.
20 Life of Commissary James Blair. .[466
tions prevented them from catching the spirit of what was
said. In reading over the papers and proceechngs of these
clerical conventions, one is impressed by the calmness of
mind maintained by Dr. Blair amid hot debates and even
when shameful and undeserved sarcasm was hurled at him.
When, in the convention of 1705, the ministers made a
number of bitter attacks on the Commissary, Blair an-
swered them in a quiet and masterly way. His calmness
and earnestness amid angry and oftentimes thoughtless
men, win our admiration. Blair possessed a rare power
of self-control.
The Commissary not only used these public assem-
blies to discipline the clergy, but as far as time permitted,
visited the parishes and spoke to the preachers individ-
ually." When any minister was charged with drunkenness
or other misconduct. Dr. Blair said he found it difficult to
get reliable evidence, for while people would report such
things in a general way, no one would come into his
presence and testify to them. This kept him from getting
at the truth, and hence from dealing properly with immoral
ministers. Perhaps the greatest hindrance encountered by
the Commissary in his visiting was the determined oppo-
sition and general aversion of the people to anv-thing like
a " spiritual court." ** The very air of Virginia seemed
to breathe a spirit of freedom into every one who placed a
foot upon her soil.
Although Blair had a spirit of righteous indignation
against immorality, yet, on the whole, he dealt gently with
the clergy. He said that unless they were " notoriously
scandalous " he found it necessary to content himself with
admonitions, for if he suspended a man he had no one to
put in his place." During the first thirty-five years of his
commissaryship he only suspended two ministers. June
20, 1723, he wrote to Mr. Forbes: "Because of the want
of clergymen to fill vacancies, I choose rather to lean to the
" Perry, p. 130. " Ibid., p. 214. " Il)id., p. 250.
467] Blair's Religious Work. 21
gentle than the severe side." ^ The Commissary earnestly
endeavored by instruction, by encouragement and by re-
buke, when necessary, to correct and purify the clergy.
Every speech and letter to the clergy unmistakably
breathes a deep and earnest spirit for the improvement of
the religious condition of the colony, and especially for rais-
ing the ministers above reproach.
Dr. Blair endeavored to secure a preacher for every par-
ish. It is certain that in writing to the Bishop of London
concerning the Church, he nearly always expressed a
desire to have more preachers sent over to Virginia."
The intensity of his spirit in pleading for more ministers
when materially they were to benefit him in no respect is
striking. The explanation of all this is short: it is simply
that Blair was a man of God and had the good of his people
at heart. The Bishops of London, though they had much
at home to occupy their time, were always mindful of
the religious welfare of Virginia and ready to aid in any
way. The thoughtfulness and the spirit of their letters to
the Commissary are exemplary. They sent over ministers
when they could. But owing to the fact that in the colony
the preachers were employed by the year, instead of being
inducted into their parishes or livings as in England, made
it very difficult to get ministers to leave home and a place
of certainty for a foreign land and a precarious living. Min-
isters to-day accustomed to being employed by the year
hardly know what a hindrance this was to securing preach-
ers for Virginia. As already mentioned, it was the duty
of the Governor to induct ministers into the churches, but
the vestrymen of each parish practically ruled all church
affairs, employed and turned ofif their preachers according
to their own desires and the Governor dared not oppose
them. A preacher was rarely presented to the Governor
Perry, p. 251.
Ibid., pp. 250, 318, 334, 357, 362.
22 Life of Commissary James Blair. [468
for induction.*" The Commissary wished the Governor
to induct the clergymen in order that more and better ones
might come from England. He said ministers living in
such precarious circumstances could not " match so much
to their advantage as if they were settled by induction." "
He wished them to marry in the best families for two reas-
ons, that they might have helpful wives and raise them-
selves in the estimation of the people, and thus be able to
do more good. The Commissary did what he could to
keep the glebes in good condition and to raise the salary
of ministers, that he might better their lot, yet the deep
odium under which the ministry labored in the colony made
it hard to persuade good men to come over, for the stand-
ing of the clergy appears to have been reported in England
worse than it was. These obstacles did not abate, in the
least, the Commissary's efforts to obtain more preachers.
He kept writing to the bishops to send more ministers, and
whenever he made a trip to England he urged them per-
sonally. His efforts were not in vain. In 1696, there were
at least fifty parishes in Virginia and only twenty-two
preachers. In 1707, there were nearly forty ministers."
In 1723 Dr. Blair wrote the Bishop of London that there
were " about ten vacancies and no ministers to supply
thcni." " And in 1733 there were only two vacancies
save some unfinished parishes. Two years later there
were more vacancies owing to the death of four of the
clergy and the completion of new parishes. But, in 1740,
there were only four or five churches without preachers.**
And in 1742, one year before Blair's death, notwithstand-
ing many preachers had been lost by death and several new
parishes formed during his commissaryship, there were
only " two vacant churches," so he wrote to the Bishop of
London."
" Historical Collections of the American Colonial Church, pp.
185. 250.
" Dr. Blair to the Bishop of London. " Perry, p. 185.
** Ibid., p. 250. *" Ibid., pp. 362, 363. *' Ibid., p. 364.
469] Blair s Religious Work. 23
Not the least of Blair's means of raising- the clergy to a
higher plane was his own upright life. His precepts to the
ministers were good and his life was consistent with them.
Amid all his trials, though eager enemies would have
been glad to find something to injure him, there is not a
single moral blemish recorded upon his character. His
life stood out before the clergy as an exemplification of his
teaching and admonitions.
This was not in vain. By reading Hartwell, Blair and
Chilton's "Present State of Virginia,'"' written in 1693.
and other literature of a later date, one can readily see there
had been an improvement in the clergy.'" Hugh Jones,
though no friend to Blair, said, in 1724, the bulk of the
clergy " had a mind to do their duty and live happily." "
Dr. Blair never ceased to strive for the welfare of his peo-
ple until his life ceased. The old man, when about eighty-
five years of age, although he had struggled with the diffi-
cult affairs of a colony in a distant land for more than
half a century, still preached *' every Sunday," and, as far
as his physical condition allowed, was active in fulfilling
the three other offices he held. His constant and earnest
activity while young for the religious welfare of Virginia,
and the tenacity with which he still clung to the same pur-
pose when many years above three-score and ten, plainly
show Dr. James Blair to have been a man who sought not
his own ease, but the good of his people and the exaltation
of the One who stood by him in all of his tasks. The
good effects of the fifty-eight years of faithful preaching,
the fifty-four years of able commissaryship, and the up-
right life of Dr. Blair upon Virginia in her formative period
can not be measured.
" Dr. Blair was one of the authors of this little history, which
is the best account we have of Virginia and her government in the
last part of the seventeenth century.
"Perry, p. 213. ""Jones' Present State of Virginia, p. 73.
CHAPTER 11.
BLAIR AS THE FOUNDER OF WILLIAM AND
MARY COLLEGE.
Dr. Blair not only had the religious but also the educa-
tional welfare of his country at heart. In his earnest
efforts to promote the religious condition of Virginia he
saw most clearly and felt most keenly the need of educated
preachers. Since he was a man who always grasped the
situation readily and prepared thoroughly for a work, he
knew that without some place of learning at home where
candidates might be taught, no great religwus work could
be done. Accordingly, he turned himself to the task of
founding a college in Virginia where men might be edu-
cated both for the ministry and for the ordinary walks of
life.
Long before Blair's time, eflforts had been made to es-
tablish a college in the colony. In 1619, George Thorpe
and George Sandys planned for a university in \^irginia.
Sir Edwin Sandys moved that ten thousand acres of land
be granted for a university at Henrico. The grant
was made. George Thorpe was chosen manager of the
lands. Contracts were made with " brick makers." The
Bishop in England raised the sum of fifteen hundred
pounds to go toward a university. Many of the colonists
were interested in the educational project and made dona-
tions to it.' It seemed that Virginia was soon to have the
first college in America. But in the spring of 1622 the
awful uprising of the Indians, in which Mr. Thorpe and
' Ncill's VirRinia Company, London, pp. 137, 138. 146-140. 329,
330. Ncill's Earliest Efforts to promote Education in English
North America.
471] Blair as Founder of IVilliam and Mary College. 25
three hundred and forty settlers, including those on the
university grounds, were massacred, put a sad and sudden
stop to this noble movement in behalf of education. For
the next seventy years little except some legislating was
done toward founding a college in Virginia.
Two years after the Indian massacre the idea of a col-
lege for Virginia was revived. It was suggested that the
buildings be located on an island in the Susquehanna
River, that they might be protected from the Indians. In
1624, the island was granted for the " founding and main-
tenance of a university and such schools in Virginia as shall
there be erected, and shall be called Acadeniia Virginiensis
et Oxoniensis." ^ But the Academy never became a reality.
The death of Mr. Edward Palmer, its principal advocate,
brought the plan to an end.
In 1660, the Assembly of Virginia passed resolutions for
the founding of a college and free school " for the advance
of learning, education of youth, supply of the ministry, and
promotion of piety." ' It was also voted that commission-
ers of the county courts take subscriptions for erecting a
college, and that the commissioners send orders to the ves-
trymen of the parishes to raise money for the same pur-
pose. " Considerable sums of money and quantityes of
tobacco " * were subscribed, but nothing material was ac-
complished.
It is not strange that these several attempts failed, for
while many colonists were in earnest about education, the
majority of them had their hearts turned toward pleasure
and an easy life, or were set on making money. Some
among the highest classes were not much in favor of educa-
tion. We hear Sir William Berkeley, Governor of Vir-
ginia, saying: "I thank God there are no free schools or
printing, and I hope we shall not have them these hundred
years." " It is just to say that ten years before making
^ Neill's Virginia Vetusta, p. 183. * Hening. ii, 25.
* Ibid., ii, 27- "Ibid., ii, pp. 511, 5i7-
26 Life of Commissary James Blair. [472
this statement, Berkeley had subscribed to the cause of
classical education. Then means for establishing a college
were extremely scarce in those early days of the colony.
Another hindrance was the fact that the people of Virginia
were scattered over the country and so it was more difficult
to get them interested in establishing colleges than it would
have been had they been settled in towns." Again, there
were always disputes as to where a college should be lo-
cated.' But that which was lacking, perhaps more than
anything else, was a man to stand by and push through
an educational project in those trying days of beginnings.
The man to fill the place was eventually found in the person
of James Blair, the able and persevering Scotchman.
Conmiissary Blair, in 1690, set himself to the work of
founding a college in Virginia, there being at that time
only " one privately endowed school and a few old field
schools " in the colony.' He talked education in such a
manner as to " infuse fire into the cold hearts " of the peo-
ple and especially into the Burgesses. Together with
others of the clergy, he prepared " Several Propositions
to be humbly presented to the consideration of ye next
General Assembly, for ye better encouragement of learn-
ing, by the founding a college in this country to consist
of three schools, z'ic, Grammar, Philosophy, and Divin-
ity." * This memorial asked the General Assembly to peti-
tion the king and queen for a charter for a college, a
grant of land, a part of the quit-rents of Virginia and other
small revenues to go toward establishing the school. The
proposition also contained a general plan for its founda-
tion and government. The Council of State approved this
plan as an "excellent design " and emi)owcred and author-
ized Dr. Blair and several other prominent men to solicit
subscriptions and gifts to defray the charges of a college
• Adams' College of William and Mary, p. 14.
' See papre 37.
* Cook's History of VirRinia. p. 305.
'College Papers, bundle 636.
473] Blair as Fomidcr of William and Mary College. 27
building/" The subscription papers show that the motive
behind the enterprise was threefold: "The Education of
our Youth, a constant supply of our Ministry and perhaps a
foundation for ye Conversion of our neighboring Heathen
(Indians) to the Christian Faith." Some money was sub-
scribed but not sufficient." In May, 1691, the General
Assembly appointed Dr. Blair to go to England and solicit
a charter and funds for a college in Virginia.'' He was
requested to seek the assistance of the Bishop of London
in obtaining a charter from the Crown, His instructions
were quite full, but so great was the Assembly's confidence
in his character and ability he was told to do as he should
" think necessarie " in presenting the supplications to their
majesties.
In June, 1691, Dr. Blair set sail. On arriving in London,
in September, the difficulties which confronted him were
discouraging." King William was in Flanders seeing to
the affairs of the war in which England was involved; the
Bishop of London from whom Blair was to seek advice
was sick; the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom the king
trusted wholly in ecclesiastical matters, was at Lambeth,
and as the winter came on he was frozen up there for five
weeks before he could get to London; Parliament and
Council were completely absorbed in the business of the
war. Though the situation was most discouraging, Dr.
Blair made the very best of it. He idled no time away, but
spent his spare months in trying to raise money for the col-
lege, and these efforts resulted eventually in the dona-
tion, known as the Boyle fund and other gifts, in all, several
hundred pounds sterling. In obtaining the charter. Dr.
Blair showed excellent judgment. Late in the fall when the
Bishop of London recovered, Blair went to him with the
'" College Papers, bundle 636, p. 5.
" Hartwell, Blair and Chilton's Present State of Virginia, p. 70.
"' America and West Indies papers, bundle 638, p. 10.
" Historical Collections, Virginia. W. S. Perry, pp. 3-8 or
Blair's letters.
28 Life of Commissary Ja)ncs Blair. [474
project. He received him cordially and promised his sup-
port. He advised Blair to take the college business before
the council and committee on plantations. Dr. Blair did
not wish to do this, but desired to present it through the
bishop directly to the king and queen. For, he said, he
wished not only to obtain a charter, but also as large funds
as possible for a college. He explained that the church
party was in the minority in the council and that, while the
council might grant a charter, it would not be inclined to
make any gift of money. Dr. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Wor-
cester, favored Blair in this plan and told him that he had
the right idea about accomplishing his mission, and to this
the Bishop of London then agreed." While waiting for the
king to return to London and for him to attend to urgent
war matters. Dr. Blair used the time in explaining to the
bishop and the queen his mission, winning their favor, and
preparing all things as far as possible before the petition
for a charter should be presented to the king and the coun-
cil." When the Archbishop of Canterbury came to London,
he aided the cause. In company with the archbishop,
Dr. Blair went to Queen Mary and made known his
mission. The queen welcomed the Commissary and
" graciously approved " the founding of a college in Vir-
ginia. Later, when the college proposal was mentioned to
the king, he was much pleased with it and frankly promised
to give something toward it, if he could find any revenues in
Virginia fit to give. When the time arrived to present the
petition formally to the Council, Dr. Blair, having been
introduced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord
Effingham, presented it in an appropriate manner, and
when he closed his remarks his Majesty said: "Sir, I am
glad that colony is upon so good a design and I will
promote it to the best of my power." " Dr. Blair was asked
to give to the Bishop of London a scheme for the college
" Perry, p. 5. " College papers. Blair's letters.
'• Perry's Historical Collc«tion, Virginia, p. 6 (Blair's letters).
475] Blair as Founder of William and Mary College. 29
and an account of what was expected for it, that it might be
brought before the Committee on Plantations. All neces-
sary steps in regard to the matter having been taken, the
charter was granted February 19, 1693, the institution to
be known by the name of " The College of William and
Mary," in honor of the king and queen. With the char-
ter the king and queen gave toward the college nineteen
hundred and eighty-five pounds, fourteen shillings and ten
pence out of the quit-rents of Virginia." They also granted
for the same purpose a tax of one penny on every pound
of tobacco exported from Virginia and Maryland; the fees
and profits arising from the office of surveyor-general,
which was put under the control of the college ; and twenty
thousand acres of land, ten thousand of which lay south
of the Blackwater and the other ten in the Pamunkey
Neck.'' Dr. Blair was sent with a royal order to Seymour,
the attorney-general, to issue a charter. Seymour hesi-
tated. He argued that England was engaged in an ex-
pensive war and could not afTord means to erect a college
in Virginia. Dr. Blair explained that the institution was
to educate young men to preach the gospel. He said the
Virginians had souls to be saved as well as their English
countrymen. To which Seymour replied, " Souls, damn
your souls! Make tobacco!" Such were the obstacles
that confronted Blair in this enterprise. While it is true
that the bishops and others in authority encouraged and
supported the educational ambition of the American colony,
yet many Englishmen, business men and men of office,
cared nothing for the intellectual welfare of Virginia. By
them " all possible objections were made to the project, as
a design that would take our planters off from their me-
chanical employments and make them grow too knowing to
be obedient and submissive." " Their ideas were to use
" College papers.
" Charter (attached to William and Mary Catalogues, Rich-
mond, 1870).
'* Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Time, p. 597.
30 Life of Commissary James Blair. [476
the inhabitants of the colony as instruments out of which
to make all the money they could. But the attorney-
general swore to no purpose. Blair was not a man who
could be baffled. He went after the charter and he obtained
it. He brought it over to Virginia in the spring of 1693.
By the charter Blair was " created and established first
president during his natural life." '" The General Assembly
also elected him president of the college." The charter
provided for the organization of the institution, stating
that the faculty of the college should consist of a presi-
dent and six professors or masters, and that it should
be a place of universal study of " Divinity, Philosophy,
Languages and other good arts and Sciences." It provided
a board of trustees, sometimes called visitors and gov-
ernors, that should not exceed twenty in number." These
chose the president, professors, rector, and chancellor.
The rector of the college was appointed yearly. Dr. Blair
was the first one. The chancellor was appointed every
seventh year. Dr. Henry Compton, Bishop of London,
was the first chancellor. The board of trustees or visi-
tors had general control of the school. But the charter
I)rovided that after the college should be founded and
erected, the trustees should grant and transfer to the
president and professors the " Lands, Manors, Tene-
ments, Rents, Services, Rectories, Portions, Annuities,
Pensions, and Advowsons of the churches, with all other
inheritances, franchises, possessions, goods, chattels and
'" Charter.
" Blair was allowed 250 pounds for his trouble in getting the
charter.
" In the charter the first trustees of the college are mentioned,
" Francis Nicholson, our Lieutenant-Governor in the Colonies
of Virginia and Maryland. Wm. Cole, Ralph Wormly, William
Byrd and John Lear, Esquires; James Blair, John Farnifold,
Stephen Fouace and Samuel Gray, clerks; Thomas Milner, Chris-
topher Robinson. Charles Scarborough. John Smith, Benjamin
Harrison, Miles Cary. Henry Hartwell, William Randolph and
Matthew Page."
477] Blair as Fmuidcr of William and Mary College. 31
Personal estate." This was to be done in order that the
president and professors might not be interfered with in
any way. These persons should also form a " body
politic and incorporated in deed and name." The faculty
had full and absolute power to nominate and elect one
of their number, or any able man they wished, to the
House of Burgesses to represent the interest of the
college." The salar}' of the president was one hundred and
fifty pounds a year, and that of professors eighty pounds
each, together " with twenty shillings entrance, and twenty
shillings a year, for pupilage for each scholar." " Such, in
brief, was the organization of the College.
As soon as Dr. Blair reached Virginia in 1693 he turned
himself to the task of having the college building erected.,
The plan of this had been prepared by Sir Christopher
Wren. It was begun but was not completed before there was
need of more money. The House of Burgesses strength-
ened the royal endowment by permanently levying an ex-
port duty, of an average of seven and one-half per cent, on
furs and skins for the support of the college." Nicholson,
then Governor of Maryland, entered heartily in the good
work and gave one hundred and fifty pounds. A consider-
able sum of money, twenty-five hundred pounds or more,
had been subscribed by Virginians, but only a very small
part of it could be collected.'" First, they had subscribed,
" some to oblige and curry favor with his excellency " — the
governor who had issued a brief for subscriptions, " others
hoping and supposing it (the college project) would come
to nothing, and others for the Commissary's sake, that they
might not be thought singular and enemies to so good a
worke, putt their hand to the Briefe and could never be
reconciled to the college " afterward." These not only
'' Charter.
" The Present State of Virginia, Hugh Jones, p. 27.
" Hening, iii, pp. 123, 124.
" Hartwell, Blair and ChiUon's Present State of Virginia, p. 70.
" College papers.
32 Life of Commissary James Blair. [478
would not pay but became " enemies to the College on
the account of their subscriptions toward it."
Second, many of the subscribers were " angry " and
would not pay because the college had been situated at
Middle Plantation, later Williamsburg."" " Ever}' one "
wanted it " in his own county or neighborhood." In
the above statement we see plainly how hard it was to
get the early settlers in Virginia to work together in any-
thing for the common good. In the third place, some sub-
scribers raised the objection that the president was receiv-
ing his salary before the college building was actually fin-
ished and the school became a college, and, therefore they
would not help." Manifestly, it was more work and worry
to the president to raise the money, have the building
erected and raise the standard of the school to a college than
to act as president after the school should be well estab-
lished. When Dr. Blair returned from England, he offered
to go to his parish in Henrico, where he was inducted into
a living, and not to receive any salary until the building
should be constructed, but the governors of the college
would not listen to any such thing. They said that Blair
had been the manager of the whole business and they were
afraid that it would still come to nothing"" if he were not
at the head of it. So they voted for him to leave his parish
at Henrico and come and carry on the college work with
" all diligence." Blair was not only the originator of the
college, but its very life. Lastly, the collectors of the
penny a pound on tobacco, were prejudiced against the
college and " began personally to entertain odium against
it," because " that money was directed from their coffers
into another channel by being given to the college." ° As
it was the collectors cheated the college out of a great deal
of revenue. Besides the lack of money, Dr. Blair had ene-
mies who opposed him. It was impossible that an active,
" HcninR, iii, I22.
" New York Archives, Vol. iii. Also College papcr.s.
"Perry, pp. 41, 42. "College papers.
479] Blair as Founder of IVilliam and Mary College. 33
earnest man, working with men who often acted merely for
gain and from other superficial motives should not have
some enemies. But he never thought of giving up the
work because of opposition and the lack of money. He
gave a part of his salary.. His friends advanced money to
the college. So the work went on. The office of surveyor-
general began to bring in money about Christmas, 1696 or
1697, and yielded annually about fifty pounds.^' About
1697, the ten thousand acres of land south of the Black-
water Swamp were leased. There was a dispute about the
ten thousand acres in the Pamunkey Neck, and it was some
time before it yielded a revenue to the college."^^ It appears
from the accounts which are before me, that the college
building cost three thousand and eighty-nine pounds."
This amount includes some small amounts paid to the
teachers. We have a good description of the appearance
of the college in Professor Hugh Jones' " Present State of
Virginia." " The front which looks due east is double, and
is 136 feet long. It is a lofty pile of brick building, adorned
with a cupola. At the north end runs back a large wing,
which is a handsome hall, answerable to which the chapel
is to be built; and there is a spacious piazza on the west
side, from one wing to the other. It is approached by a
good walk, and a ground entrance by steps, with good
courts and gardens about it . . . and a large pasture en-
closed like a park with about 150 acres of land adjoining
for occasional uses." "^ This description was given of the
second building, but the model was the same as the first
and tradition says the general appearance was.
Teaching was begun before the building was completed.
The grammar school was started in 1693,''^ the same year
that Blair returned from England. Thus we see that in
"^ Hartwell, Blair and Chilton's Present State of Virginia, p. 69.
'' " Board of Trade," Virginia, Vol. vi.
^' College papers.
''^ Present State of Virginia, Hugh Jones, p. 26.
"" College papers.
33
34 Life of Commissary James Blair. [480
less than three years from tlie time lUair began to infuse
fire into the Burgesses about the college he had been to
England, obtained the charter, returned and put the college
in operation. The grammar school was " well furnished
with a good school master, usher and writing master.""
Alongo Inglis, M. A., a Scotchman of ability, was the first
professor of the grammar school. This grammar school,
which was for the " education of the youth of the Colony in
the Latin and Greek tongues " was all that the college had
for several years. It was the corner-stone of the institution.
The college soon did good work, for in the report made by
ten of the most prominent men of the time, we read: " The
scholars make great proficiency in their studies to the gen-
eral satisfaction of their parents and guardians." ^^ In May,
1697, the House of Burgesses attended exercises at the
college and spoke with commendation of the studying
the students were doing. That year there were twenty-
nine students.""" The first Commencement was held in
the closing year of the century. It was a grand occa-
sion for the colony and attracted visitors from far be-
yond the bounds of Virginia. " There was a great con-
course of people; several planters came thither in coaches
and others in sloops from New York, Pennsylvania and
Maryland, it being a new thing in that part of America to
hear graduates perform their exercises. Indians had the
curiosity, some of them, to visit Williamsburg upon that
occasion; and the whole country rejoiced.*" As mentioned
above, it was several years before the college became more
than a grammar school. The growth of the institution was
slow, often its plans were crippled from a lack of adequate
funds. But this would not be doing justice to the real cir-
cumstances. There were two other things that hindered the
growth of the college enough to demand mention here.
" Board of Trade, Virginia, Vol. vi.
** Board of Trade, Virginia, Vol. vi.
"William and Mary College Quarterly. Vol. i, p. 130.
" Campbell's History of Virginia, pp. 361, 362.
481] Blair as Founder of William and Mary College. 35
First, Dr. Blair's troubles with governors of Virginia, and
second, the discord between the President and Professor
Mongo Inglis, the leading master in the school. The
trouble of Dr. Blair with the governors caused him to have
to make two trips to England and these took much of his
time and attention from the college when it needed him
most. The contentions divided the people into factions
and it was nothing but natural for the most of those who
opposed the president to oppose the college, since he was
the head of it. These disturbances were also the cause of
a number of students being taken from the college." The
discord between President Blair and Professor Inglis was
very injurious to the college for a few years. This arose
largely from misunderstandings and the reports of tale-
bearers. Professor Inglis, a man of considerable ability,
but who would talk too much, became extremely angry
wath President Blair. He threatened to give up his profess-
orship and let the college go to nothing, for, he said, the
whole reputation of the institution was derived from himself.
He declared that the school would never amount to any-
thing while Blair remained president, for, said he, the
president used it only as a " tool with which to enrich him-
self " and as a " stalking house " by which to carry on de-
signs against governors and turn them out of oflfice. Pro-
fessor Inglis spoke as disrespectfully of Blair as he could.
He even accused him of trying to break up the college.
But, unfortunately for the professor's charges, they con-
tradict themselves. While, on the one hand, they make
Blair to get his riches and all of his power from the college,
on the other, they accuse him of trying to ruin the insti-
tution— that which Blair knows to be the source of his
income and power.
This dispute threw a damper over the whole school,
partly unfitted Professor Inglis for his work, and destroyed
the harmony that should exist between the President and
" College papers.
36 Life of Commissary James Blair. [482
the Professor. Dr. Blair seems not to have become angry
with Mr. Inghs, but tried to reason the matter with him.
No attempt will be made here to give a full account of the
causes of Mr. Inglis' falling out with Dr. Blair, for that
would be discussing them farther than their importance
deserves. I only mention briefly a few of the causes as
stated by Mr. Inglis himself, while irritated: "First," he
said, " Dr. Blair ordered his brother's son, John Blair to be
taken from the college, and that this was the cause of Dr.
Blair's friends taking six more students from the school,
which students were boarding with Inglis." Each student
paid to Mr. Inglis twenty shillings entrance fee and the
same sum for tutorage, and this, together with the money
for board, touched Mr. Inglis' pocketbook very sensibly.
This, according to his own statements, was the chief reason
of his hatred toward the President. But Dr. Blair said he
did not order his nephew to leave the college, and. further-
more, that he was away in England when the boy left and
knew nothing of it at the time. " Second," Mr. Inglis said,
" the President was using the college as a ' stalking house '
to serve him in turning out governors." " Third." because
of Dr. Blair's ingratitude to Governor Nicholson, " the
great patron of the college." " Fourth," because Dr. Blair
had " injured and disgraced " his (Inglis) scholars and him-
self by statements he made in an affidavit against the Gov-
ernor. The gist and truth of the whole matter is this: Mr,
Inglis thought Dr. Blair had been the cause of the seven
students being removed from college and these removals,
according to the professor's own words, touched his pocket
considerably as well as his reputation as a professor.
And furthermore he was a friend to Nicholson, Blair's
enemy, hence from both his feeling and the custom of the
time, it was natural for him to be an enemy of Dr. Blair."
The president managed this trouble between himself and
the professor as ably as the circumstances permitted. To-
College papers. Mongo Inglis' letters. N. Y. Archives, Vol. i.
483] Blair as Founder of William and Mary College. 37
gether with these drawbacks to the college followed an-
other of a different kind. As already intimated, the college
building had been erected only about ten years when it
burned down. This took place in 1705. " Very little saved
that was in it," says Beverly, " the fire breaking out about
ten o'clock at night, in a public time. The Governor and
all the gentlemen came up to the lamentable spectacle."
" But the fire had got such a power .... there were no
hopes of putting it out." This, indeed, seemed discourag-
ing, since there were no funds on hand with which to re-
build. But it is said that Dr. Blair was not discouraged.
Not for a moment did the President and the best friends
of the college think of giving it up. The college had won
friends from among its former enemies. Its presence
had stimulated an educational impulse.
The president and other trustees put themselves to the
task of rebuilding. The second building did not go up
nearly so fast as the first. When Alexander Spotswood
was appointed Governor, in 1710, he encouraged the Presi-
dent and helped toward the building. Finally the edifice
was restored. The second building, while like the first in
general appearances, was more beautiful. It was not " al-
together unlike Chelsea Hospital." "
Besides the main edifice there was also one for the edu-
cation of Indians. Few people of to-day know how much
interested the early settlers of Virginia were in educating
and Christianizing the Indians. They were in earnest about
the matter. In connection with the early movements for
colleges there was always something said about educating
the Indians. There is scarcely a petition that states the
purpose of founding William and Mary College but that
expresses the intention of educating the natives of America.
The promoters of the educational project carried this
intention into effect. Hon. Robert Boyle, who died in
England in 1791, ordered his executors "to apply his per-
" Present State of Virginia, Hugh Jones, p. 26.
38 Life of Comviissary James Blair. [481-
sonal estate to such charitable and pious uses as they, in
their discretion, should think fit." " Tlie Boyle bequest,
£5400, was invested in a landed estate called the Braffer-
ton. While in England, in 1692, Dr. Blair had partly se-
cured this bequest. In 1697 he went back to England, and,
aided by the Bishop of Canterbury, obtained the most of
this bequest for the College of William and Mary." A part
of this legacy went to Harvard College. By means of the
Boyle endowment the College of William and Mary erected
a building called the " Braflferton," solely for Indian educa-
tion, which purpose it long served. It was a " handsome
Louse " and had twelve rooms.*" This building is still
standing and is used as a dormitory for students. The
Indian school had a master or professor." Governor
Spotswood, during his administration, abolished the petty
tribute formerly exacted from certain Indian tribes on con-
dition that the " chief men " should send their children to
the college to be educated. From hostile tribes young
Indians were taken as hostages to be educated, who served
to maintain the public safety. The queen of the Pamun-
keys sent her son to the college. Many of the Indians who
came to the school took much interest in the studies. Dur-
ing Spotswood's regime there were nearly twenty Indians
at the college at one time. It seems that this Indian de-
partment did well at the start. Governor Spotswood in a
communication to the Bishop of London, dated July 26,
1712, speaks of the success of the experiment, but of the
insufficiency of the endowment. The Indians, he says, "are
decently cloathed and maintained, so that they seem very
well pleased with the change of their condition as indeed
their parents and others of their nations, who come fre-
quently to see them, express nnicli satisfaction with the
care that is taken of them, and frequently lament their own
" H. B. Adams' William and Mary College, p. 16. Perry, p. 8.
" Duychinck's Cyclopedia of American Literature, Vol. i, pp.
87. 88.
** Ibid. " Letters of Governor Spotswood, i, p. 174.
485] Blair as Founder of William and Mary College. 39
misfortune in not having like advantages in their youth;
but, as the revenue of the college settled by Mr. Boyle for
that service is insufficient to support so great a charge, I
hope your Lordship will use interest for obtaining some
contributions from the Society for propagating the Gospel
to Promote so good a design." ** But this Indian depart-
ment never did the good that its promoters had thought
and hoped. The disposition of the roving Indian who had
been hemmed in only by the gilded horizon and blue can-
opy of the heavens was not adapted to academic walls.
Mail) became dissatisfied in school and pined away and
died.
The college for the whites, under the guidance of its able
and devoted president, increased in size and usefulness.
The board of visitors and governors met often to attend
to the business of the college and look after gifts and en-
dowments. The proceedings of these meetings were well
kept. They contain not only such transactions as selecting
professors and choosing visitors, but they have the min-
utest details of the college business.^*
Notwithstanding that the governors of the college at-
tended closely to their duties, the institution was cheated
out of a great deal of the revenue belonging to it.'" From
time to time gifts of more or less importance were added
to the funds." In 1718, the General Assembly, acting
on the advice of Governor Spotswood, gave one thousand
pounds. In 1726, the House of Burgesses put a duty on
liquors, which revenue was given to the college." The As-
sembly's appropriation and the income from liquors were
both used in establishing scholarships. Colonel Hill, of
Shirley, and Robert Carter, of Corotoman, together gave
two hundred pounds for the endowment of a scholarship.
Mrs. Elizabeth Harrison, of Surry, contributed three hun-
** Letters of Governor Spotswood, Vol. i, p. 174.
^° Virginia Magazine of History, Vols, iii and iv.
■"* Hening, Vol. iv, pp. 429, 430. College papers.
°' Hening, Vol. iv, p. 74. " Hening, Vol. iv, pp. 148, 432.
40 Life of Commissary James Blair. [486
dred pounds, and Mrs. Thomas Bray, of New Kent, two
hundred. The college had a library containing' a re-
markable number of volumes considering how few books
there were on this side of the Atlantic." From time to
time books were donated to it from private libraries. When
Alexander Spotswood died, in 1740, he bequeathed his
books, maps and mathematical instruments to the college."
Until 171 1 the faculty of the college consisted of Presi-
dent Blair, a grammar professor, Mongo Inglis, an usher,
James Hodges, and a writing master. The building hav-
ing been destroyed by fire in 1705, the money that would
have employed other professors had to go toward the new
building. In 171 1, Mr. Lefevre was elected first pro-
fessor of mathematics." The exact times when other per-
sons were added to the faculty is not known, but by 1729
it contained the full number intended by the charter — six
professors, graduates of Edinburgh, Oxford and Cam-
bridge." It was the first college in America to have a full
faculty. Bartholomew Yates and Francis Fountain were
tlic professors of theology, William Dawson and Alexan-
der Irwin, of philosophy and mathematics; Joshua Fry, of
the grammar school, and Richard Cocke, of the Indian
school." The classical languages. Oriental languages, di-
vinity, mathematics and philosophy were now taught.
It was thus that President Blair, against fire, personal op-
position, and scarcity of money, brought the college to its
full size and to success. In 1729, as the original charter had
provided, it was transferred to the president and profes-
sors." Its work did not disappoint the founder in his
expectation of good. It did much in raising the standard
of the ministry at the time and played an important part
"Virginia Magazine of History, Vol. iv, p. 161.
" Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. v,
p. 267.
"Virginia Historical Collections. Vol. i, pp. 103, 156, 158.
"William and Mary Historical Papers, Vol. ii, p. 65.
" Transfer of the College.
"Transfer; attached to William and Mary Catalogues, Rich-
mond, 1870.
487] Blair as Founder of William and Mary College. 41
in educating statesmen. Concerning ministers, Bishop
jMeade said: " It is positively affirmed by those most com-
petent to speak that the best ministers were those educated
at the college." We need make no comment on the states-
men who have studied in the halls of old William and Mary
College. Their names speak for themselves. Among them
were Jefiferson, Monroe, and Tyler, Presidents of the United
States; John Tyler, Governor of Virginia; Peyton Ran-
dolph, first President of the Continental Congress; Ed-
mund-Randolph, Governor of Virginia; John Mercer, Gov-
ernor of Maryland; James Innes, Attorney-General of Vir-
ginia; John Blair, Bushrod Washington and Philip Bar-
bour, Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States,
and the great Chief Justice John Marshall. Besides these,
the college has sent out fifteen Senators, a greater number
of Representatives, fifteen Governors, more than thirty
judges, two commodores, nine members of the Cabinet,
and a number of other men of public trust and high posi-
tion. In founding William and Mary College, Dr. Blair
put in motion a mighty power to shake the British throne
and set the American conscience free. It was during his
two years of study at William and Mary College that Jef-
ferson was inspired with the thoughts that expanded his
mind and gave him his idea of an educational system. He
says: "In the spring of 1760, went to William and Mary
College, where I continued two years. It was my great
good fortune, and what probably fixed the destinies of my
life, that Dr. William Small, of Scotland, was then Profes-
sor of Mathematics, a man profound in most of the useful
branches of science, with a happy talent of communicative,
correct and gentlemanly manners and an enlarged and
liberal mind. He, most happily for me, became soon
attached to me, and made me his daily companion when
not engaged in the school; and from his conversation I
got my first views of the expansion of science, and of the
system of things in which we are placed." '''
"* Dr. Fooie's Sketches of Virginia, p. 155.
42 Life of Commissary James Blair. [488
Professor Herbert B. Adams, in his monograph on
" Wilham and Mary College," says: "Virginia is called
the mother of presidents, but the College of William and
Mary, the alma mater of statesmen, is only another name
for \'irginia." It is proper to add here that, though Wil-
liam and Mary College has been partially destroyed by fire
several times, and greatly injured by both the Revolution-
ary and Civil Wars, it is doing a good work at the present
time. It stands to-day as the first American college that
received a charter, the first in the world planned by English
colonists, and the second, in point of time, actually estab-
lished in America.
CHAPTER III.
BLAIR'S CONNECTION WITH THE GOVERN-
ORS OF VIRGINIA.
Besides being Commissary and President, Blair was also
a member of the Council of Virginia. He was appointed
to this office by the king in 1793.' This Council corre-
sponded to the Upper House in England and its duty
was to advise and assist the Governor in all important mat-
ters of government about which he might consult them."
When the Council acted with the House of Burgesses,
it formed what was called the General Assembly. As a
member of the Council, Blair was a judge of the highest
court in the colony. He was president of the Council for
many years. No man in the colony held as many import-
ant offices as Blair. He was always busy working for the
welfare of the colony either as Commissary or preacher,
as President of the College, or as a member of the Council
m its different functions. Wherever Dr. Blair was, he
counted for something. When he believed any line of
action to be right he adhered strictly to it.
The governor was ordinary to the king and to the Bishop
of London, hence his relations with Blair were close and
in some cases almost inseparable. As ordinary, it was the
governor's business to induct the ministers upon presenta-
tion of them by the vestrymen, and in case they did not
present candidates in six months, the governor had the
' Hartwell. Blair and Chilton's Present State of Virginia, p. 35-
Campbell's Virginia, p. 356. Some writers differ regarding the
date, but according to Blair's own statement it was 1793.
' Hartwell, Blair and Chilton's Present State of Virginia.
44 Life of Commissary James Blair. [490
right to induct preachers without presentation.' There were
frequent misunderstandings and disagreements between
the Commissary and Governor about induction and other
cliurch matters. Thus Blair's many sided duties and the
energy and earnestness with which he worked, frequently
brought him in collision with prominent men of the colony.
He was involved in difficulties with clergymen and gover-
nors during the greater part of the period of his commis-
saryship and presidency of the college. Troubles arising
from the Church, the Government and the College caused
controversies and opposition between Dr. Blair and three
governors — Andros, Nicholson, and Spotswood. There are
hundreds of pages of manuscript and letters relating to the
conflicts of these colonial authorities. Some of the trials
in Lambeth Palace are reported in full and are extremely
interesting.
Sir Edmund Andros became Governor of Virginia in
1692, at the time the college was being founded. He came
from New York where he was in bad repute. He opposed
the founding of the school.* He spread among the voters
the fear that taxes would be increased should the college
be established. He never paid an^ihing himself toward its
support, and it is said his friends did not. He once prom-
ised brick to build the chapel and then withdrew his prom-
ise.' In trying to exert an influence against Dr. Blair, the
governor complained even because he was a Scotchman.
At another time he suspended Blair from the Council with-
out holding any trial or even informing him, because he had
spoken of the governor's obstruction of the college.' When
reported, the king disapproved of the action and restored
Blair to the Council. Even after this, Andros had the
audacity to declare that he was not eligible because he was
born in Scotland.
* Laws of Virginia, p. 3. Perry, pp. 243, 244.
* Perry's Historical Collections, Virginia, pp. 18-29.
* Perry, pp. 54-57.
* Hartvvcll, Blair and CliiUon's Present State of Virginia, p. 36.
491] Blair's Connection zvith the Government. 45
In 1607, Blair went to England to attend to getting the
Boyle legacy for the college. At the same time complaints
were made against the governor and Blair then brought
thirteen charges against Andros as an enemy to the
church, the clergy, and the college.' There were no petty
personal complaints in these charges, although numerous.
They all pertained to matters of importance to the colony.
Five were in regard to the church and the clergy. The
governor never tried to fill the vacant parishes. He made
no attempt to induct the ministers into their livings. He
did not favor them in their salaries when he could have
done so. When the clergy were shamefully treated and
brought their complaints before the governor, he paid but
little attention to them., Eight other charges were con-
cerning the college. In substance they were that Governor
Andros favored the enemies of the college; paid nothing
himself and tried to influence others not to pay their sub-
scriptions; put difficulties in the way of the college receiv-
ing its revenues, and hindered the meetings of the trustees
or the governors of the college. The trial took place in
Lambeth Palace, December 27, 1697, and lasted two days.
Blair had strong foes to meet. The governor had sent
over his defenders. Colonel Byrd, of Westover, Mr. Har-
rison, of Surry, a Mr. Marshall and a Mr. Povey, to ar-
raign Dr. Blair before the Archbishop of Canterbury and
the Bishop of London.* They brought forward two accu-
sations against Blair. He successfully refuted both of
them, for they were weak. The first was that the Commis-
sary had filled the parishes with Scotchmen against the peo-
ple's desires. Dr. Blair's opponents had made a blunder.
Certain Englishmen had been taken for Scotchmen. The
oth^r charge was that Blair took his salary as president
before the college was completed. Blair answered that
^ Perry, pp. 10-29, 32-36. Fulham Mss., Nos. 594 and 1029.
' Perry, p. 36. Meade's Old Churches and Families, Vol. i, p.
in8.
46 Life of Coiniiiissary James Blair. [492
though the General Assembly and the charter of the col-
lege had given him a right to the president's salary, yet he
had told the governors of the college, when he returned to
\'irginia in 1693, that if they thought " the business of the
president unnecessary at present " he had a good living
at Henrico and would go there and stay until he was
needed. But after " free debate upon the subject " the
trustees of the college agreed that as he had been manag-
ing the business of the institution in Virginia and in Eng-
land, " they were afraid it would still come to nothing," if
he was not head of it, therefore voted that he should leave
his parish and remove " to the place where the college
should be built, and carry it on with all diligence." ° Ac-
cordingly, he moved.
On the other hand, Dr. Blair sustained for the most
part his charges against the governor, often making his
opponents admit their truth.'" The calmness, frankness,
and knowledge with which Blair spoke gave his words
additional power. Bishop Meade has truly said: "Never
were four men more completely foiled by one." '^ The
trial, or the examination, resulted in the exoneration of
Dr. Blair and the recall of Governor Andros.
In 1698, Sir Francis Nicholson, who had been the Deputy
Governor of Virginia in 1690 and 1691, was again appointed
to that ol^ce. The Earl of Orkney was the nominal gov-
ernor but remained in England. During Nicholson's first
governorship, he and Blair were strong friends.'" Nichol-
son favored the college project and contributed liberally,
and Blair wrote him many letters expressing the greatest
appreciation and gratitude. When Nicholson came to Vir-
ginia the second time, he got along agreeably with the Com-
missary for awhile, yet from the very beginning seemed to
be a changed man. Many people of the time remarked the
* Perry, p. 42.
'° Perry, pp. 36-65. Campbell's Virginia, pp. 356, 357.
" Meade's Old Churches and Families, p. 158.
" College papers and Blair's letters.
493] Blair's Connection zvith the Government. 47
change. While governor of Maryland he had disagreed
much with Commissary Bray," and that experience gave indi-
cation of what might follow. On the day of the publication
of the governor's commission, Dr. Blair took it to him,
and in accordance with advice from Nicholson's friends
and in the name of the Bishop of London, recommended,
in the best of spirit, moderation in his administration.
Nicholson replied very hotly: " G — — I know better
how to govern Virginia and Maryland than all the bishops
in England; if I had not hampered them in Maryland and
kept them under, I should never have been able to have
governed them."" Dr. Blair answered: "I do not pre-
tend to understand Maryland, but if I understand anything
about Virginia they are as good-natured, tractable people
as any in the world, and you may do what you will with
them by the way of civility, but you will never be able to
manage them in that way you speak of — by hampering
and keeping them under." By nature, Nicholson was self-
willed, high-tempered and vain. He always wished to
have his way, whether in afifairs of politics, love, or anything
else. His tyrannical and passionate actions turned many
people against him.
In a few years Blair and Governor Nicholson were com-
pletely at variance with each other. Without doubt the
tyranny, profanity, immorality, and ridiculous actions of
Nicholson caused Blair to oppose him as governor. When
the least angry, he collared and cursed attorney-generals;"
assaulted ministers; took ofif their hats and called them
villains, rogues, rascals and banditti.'" He swore at mem-
bers of the Council and applied to them his usual list of
opprobrious narr.es, " rogue, rascal, cheat, dog, villain, and
coward." "
The governor's acts were offensive enough, but a love
affair brought out his worst qualities and made him almost
Meade, p. 158. " Perry, pp. 76. 77.
Perry, pp. loi, 102. "Ibid., pp. 90, 91. "Ibid., p. 98.
48 Life of Commissary Jauics Blair. [494
as a mad man. This affair had so much influence upon
Nicholson and increased the disagreement and enmity be-
tween him and Dr. Blair to such a degree that it requires
mention here. In fact, many of the people of the time said
it was this that changed Nicholson. Major Lewis Bur-
well, who lived near Williamsburg, had nine daughters,
with one of whom the governor had the misfortune to
fall passionately in love. The love was not reciprocated.
This " completely upset what little reason there was in
Governor Nicholson." '' He demanded the lady in royal
fashion from her parents, but neither she nor her parents
nor members of the family were willing to comply. The
governor became angry and persisted in his design and
' claim. He threatened the father and the brother and swore
to Dr. Blair that if the girl married some other man, he
would cut the throats of three men — the bridegroom, the
minister, and the justice who issued the license.'* The
frenzied action of the governor was talked of not only in
Virginia, but even in London., One of Nicholson's Lon-
don friends wrote a letter of advice in which he asked him
not to give the lady or her relations any further molesta-
tion and said: " It is not here as in some barbarous coun-
tries where the tender lady is dragged into the Sultan's
arms just reeking in the blood of her nearest relatives." "
The governor hated and abused every one whom he
thought opposed him directly or indirectly in the love af-
fair. He imagined that Archibald Blair, brother of the
Commissary, was his rival, and hence " conceived the
strongest objections to him and all his relatives." Where-
upon he sent for Dr. Blair and said to him: "Sir, your
brother is a villain and you have betrayed me." Then
he lifted up his hands and loudly said: "Mr. Blair, take
notice; I vow to the eternal G — that I will be revenged
on vou and all vour faniilv." " Blair did all he could to
'• Meade, p. 159. " Perry, p. 102. " Perry, pp. 66-75.
" William and Mary Historical Papers, Vol. i, p. 67.
495] Blair's Connection with the Government. 49
iindecieve and " pacify him " and to let him know that he
was not opposing him in any way in his love afifair. Still,
however, he pursued the Commissary with malice and tried
to ruin him in both England and Virginia. It was believed
by President Blair and others that Nicholson even enter-
tained designs on his life. Nicholson gave the college
boys, pistols, powder and shot with which to keep the
president out of the college." Yet it cannot be said for
certain that the governor intended to have boys go so far
as to kill the president.
But the governor made a mistake which cost him his
office in antagonizing the sober-minded and influential
Commissary. Before his love trouble the governor did
not wish the Council to oppose him in any way. Now
Nicholson's actions were a great deal worse. Blair and
five other members of the Council — Robert Carter, Philip
Ludwell, J. Lightfoot, Matthew Page, and Benjamin Har-
rison— drew up a memorial against Governor Nicholson
and sent it to the queen." Soon after this, Dr. Blair and
the Rev. James Fouace were requested to make affidavits
relating to the mal-administration of Governor Nicholson.
They did so. The charges brought in Blair's first affidavit
pertained to the arbitrariness and partiality of the gov-
ernor in his administration.'* They charged Nicholson
with appointing justices of the peace, sheriffs, militia and
naval officers and other officers without consulting the
Council; with removing clerks and judges from office with-
out any complaints being brought against them; with act-
ing directly contrary to the advice of the Council; with
hectoring its members and calling them " the opprobrious
names of rogue, rascal, cheat, dog, villain, and coward;"
with using partiality in the general court; and with un-
called for action in strengthening the militia, and with
" Perry, pp. 137, 138. William and Mary Historical Papers,
Vol. i, p. 68. College papers.
■'Perry, pp. 75-81. "Perry, pp. 87-112.
34
50 Life of Commissary James Blair. [496
using suspicious expressions as to how he could govern if
he had " soldiers well-fleshed in blood and accustomed
to booty."
The second and further affidavit of Blair against the
governor pertained to the clergy, the college and himself."
The substance of the affidavit was that the governor in-
vaded the Commissary's jurisdiction by calling meetings of
the clergy without taking notice of the Commissary; acted
disrespectfully toward, and spoke contemptuously of the
clergy, saying " they were all a pack of scoundrels " and he
wished they were dead; threw abuses on the college and
acted without the direction of the trustees and hindered
the revenues; and interfered with the private affairs of
Blair and tried to ruin his reputation. The conduct of the
governor which touched Dr. Blair the most was Nichol-
son's tyranny in the Council, his profane language and dis-
respectful talk about the clergy. The one aim of Blair's life
was to raise the standard of the clergy in the estimation
of the people, in order that they might do more religious
good. Anything that hindered this aim touched the very
soul of the Commissary.
Mr, Thrale, as agent of Nicholson, answered the charges
brought against the governor. If they could have been
refuted, Mr. Thrale failed to refute them. He begins by
telling his Lordship that if his answers appear defective,
that is leave the governor unjustified, he hopes the defect
will be attributed to his ignorance in drawing them up and
in nowise reflect upon the governor's cause. He attempts
to answer but few of the accusations with plain facts. His
replies, in general, are that the governor had a right to
do so and so, and that he believed he was doing right in
acting this way and that. No doubt the Council did object
to the governor's acts sometimes when they had no strictly
legal right. Mr. Thrale makes no attempt to answer many
of the charges and even acknowledges of several that it is
Perry, pp. 131-138.
497] Blair's Connection ivith the Gozernment. 51
impossible to refute them. All of this dispute led to a
general uproar in Church and State. Preachers and poli-
ticians took a part. The House of Burgesses passed a
resolution in favor of the governor, saying they were of
the opinion that he had great respect for the welfare and
prosperity of the country."^ A great reception was given
at the hotel in Williamsburg to which clergymen were in-
vited in order that they might be brought over to the gov-
ernor's cause."' Some one of the time wrote a long poem
" addressed to the Revd. Members of the Convocation
Held at Man's Ordinary at Williamsburg," in which the
ministers of the festival are satirized and depicted in un-
clerical hilarity. The first stanza of the poem is as follows :
" Bless us, what dismal times are these,
What stars are in conjunction,
What Priests turn Sycophants to please,
And Hair brained Passion to appease,
Dare Prostitute their Function." ^
A large number of ministers were in fact on the side of
Governor Nicholson. Some of them were preachers with
whom the Commissary was unpopular and whom the gov-
ernor had won by taking their side against the vestries.
Many of them were, perhaps unconsciously to themselves,
won to the governor by his receptions, favors and flatter-
ing speeches. Those of the clergy who were on Nichol-
son's side signed a paper in his favor," but their influ-
ence could not save him. The proud governor was com-
pletely defeated by the sober-minded Commissary. When
the charges and answers were examined in England, Gov-
ernor Nicholson was removed and Edward Nott was made
Lieutenant-Governor. The upright and philanthropic life
of Blair in Virginia had won great respect for him in Eng-
land, and when he said anything it carried weight with it.
Nicholson is not the subject of this sketch, yet, in passing,
" New York Archives, Vol. ii.
" Campbell's Virginia, p. 358. Meade, Vol. i, p. 159.
" Perry, 179. " New York Archives, Vol. ii.
52 Life of Commissary James Blair. [498
it may be said that in spite of his bad traits, there was a
warm-iieartedness and poUteness about him, in his best
hours, which attract the sympathy of the investigator.
In 1710, Alexander Spotswood became Governor of Vir-
ginia." His was a nobler character than either of the other
two mentioned. He was an old soldier. From his boy-
hood he was brought up in the army and served under the
Duke of Marlborough. He was in the battle of Blenheim
and was badly wounded by the first fire of the French."
He rose to the rank of colonel and hence had learned to
command and expect obedience without gainsaying. This
spirit he, of course, brought with him when he came to Vir-
ginia as governor. While liberal in some of his views,
he was ardent for the royal power and for its transfer to
the governor of Virginia. He made one of the best gover-
nors the colony ever had. For many years there was " per-
fect friendship " between him and Dr. Blair. He gave the
college his support and at his instance the Assembly, in
1718, voted the college one thousand pounds.'' He gave
special encouragement to Indian education. On the other
hand. President Blair supported Spotswood's favorite en-
terprise— the crossing of the Blue Ridge and discovering
the valley beyond."^ But after seven or eight years had
passed disagreement began to rise between the two. The
discord was due to two things: the rather extreme dominion
exercised by the governor and the confused relations of
Church and State. The spirit of freedom that always ex-
isted in a Virginia House of Burgesses was not exactly
suited to the prerogative of a soldier governor." A quar-
rel arose between Spotswood and the Burgesses. Colonel
Byrd, with others, was sent over to England to prefer
*° Lord Orkney was still figurehead Governor.
" Spotswood's Letters, Vol. i, p. 9 (preface). Campbell's Vir-
ginia, pp. 378. 379-
" Spotswood's Letters, Vols, i and ii, p. 12 (preface).
" Meade, Vol. i, p. 160.
"Spotswood's Letters. Vol. i, pp. 132. 139; Vol. ii. pp. 219, 220.
499] Blai/s Connection ivith the Government. 53
charges against him, and because Dr. Blair would not take
sides with him the governor tried to injure the Commis-
sary. Again the governor appointed men, other than mem-
bers of the Council, judges in the high court of Oyer
and Terminer." The Council opposed this, as well as
other high-handed actions, and, led by Blair, drew up a
remonstrance against the governor to the Lord Commis-
sioner of Trade and Plantations, whereupon the governor
besought the Commissioners to petition the queen to dis-
miss the whole Council and appoint another.
The other cause of Blair's opposition to Spotswood is
found in the matter of inducting ministers. To the gov-
ernor, as ordinary, belonged in ecclesiastical affairs, induc-
tion of minsters, probating wills and granting of licenses.
No man was more anxious for preachers to be inducted
than was the Commissary. The point in dispute was this:
Spotswood claimed the right of inducting a minister into a
parish as soon as the parish might become vacant, that is,
as soon as it needed a preacher.^" The Commissary claimed
that it was the function of the vestrymen, in the name of
the parishioners, to present a minister to the governor for
induction, and in case the vestrymen should not present
a candidate for the place in six months from the time the
parish became vacant, then the governor could induct a
preacher without presentation,*' According to the practice
of former governors, the opinion of Attorney-General
North and the act of the General Assembly, the Commis-
sary was right.**
To the convention of the clergy at Williamsburg in 17 19,
Governor Spotswood addressed a letter accusing the Com-
missary of not wanting ministers inducted, of deserting the
cause of the Church, and of allowing laymen to conduct
services in church and at burials.*' Dr. Blair readily an-
Spotswood's Letters, Vol. ii, pp. 221, 223, 259, 260.
Perry, pp. 97, 98, 203-208. ^' Ibid., pp. 226-242.
Ibid., pp. 127, 128, 243, 244. ^^ Ibid., 201-203.
54 Life of Commissary James Blair. [500
swered these, for the first two were absolutely untrue. As
to the third, a few times, when indisposed, Blair had al-
lowed a layman to read for him and then preached and
conducted the rest of the services. In distant parts of the
colony he had a time or two ridden by a cemetery when
some grave layman was conducting the burial service.**
These charges seem to us at the present time petty and
trivial, but at that time when everything was done accord-
ing to stern and rigid custom, they were regarded as of no
little importance.
During the disagreement many letters were written by
both parties to the Bishop of London. In 1721, Dr. Blair
made a trip to England. The triumph of the old parson
over the old soldier was complete, Spotswood was re-
called in 1722 and Drysdale was made governor. The
opposition between the Commissary and Spotswood had
much to do with the removal of the governor/' In all of
these conflicts between the governors and the Commissary
one thing is most apparent, namely, the friction between
the Church and State. These disturbances did not rise
altogether from the fault of these individuals but from con-
ceptions of government which had been inherited from
Europe.
With Spotswood, Dr. Blair's troubles with governors
passed away. Hardly, if ever, are the manly struggles of
life suffered to be in vain. The old parson president saw
the storm and the clouds, which darkened the morning of
his life, pass away, and heavenly peace crowned his later
years. For twenty years more the venerable Commissary
toiled on for the religious, educational, and political good
of the colony. Considering the many offices Dr. Blair
held and his relations to others, it may be granted that he
concerned himself at times a little too much with the affairs
of others, though of this there is no evidence in the records.
"Perry, 226-2.33. Mcadc, Vol. i, pp. 160, 161.
*' William and Mary Historical Papers, Vol. i, pp. 68, 69.
501] Blair's Connection zcith the Government. 55
Earnestness, sincerity, and labor are the most noticeable
thing's in his life from the time he landed in Virginia to
the end of his career. His life was one of philanthropic
service. It was ever above reproach. After having been
a preacher for more than sixty-five years, Commissary
fifty-four years, a member of the Council fifty years, and
President of the College half a century. Dr. Blair died.
April i8, 1743, in his eighty-ninth year. He was buried at
Jamestown. Having had no children, he left the residue of
his estate, except some small legacies, to his nephew John
Blair and his children. To the institution which he so long
served he left his library and five hundred pounds."
*^ William and Mary Historical Papers, Vol. i, p. 6g. Meade,
Vol. i, p. 168.
APPENDIX
The following is the inscription on Dr. Blair's tomb, as
.copied by Hugh Blair Grigsby in the middle of this cen-
tury:"
" H. S. E. (Hie sepultus est)
Vir Rcvcrendus et Honorabilis
Jacobus Blair, A. M.
In Scotia natus,
In Academia Edinburgensi nutritus,
Primo Angliam deinde Virginiam
venit:
In qua parte tenarum
Annos LVIII. Evangeli, Preconis
LIV. Commissarii
Gulielmi et Mariae Praesidis,
Britanniae Principium
Consiliarii
Concilii Praesidis
Coloniae Prefecti
muncra sustinuit
oravit
um oris venusti Decus,
ate hilari sine (?) hospitali
muncipient
issimo egenis largo
omnibus comi
superavit.
Collegio bene diversam
fundaverat
eus Bibliothecam suam
id alenda Thcologiae studiorum
Juventutem pauperiorem instilucndam
Testamento Icgavit
Cal. Maii in die
MDCCXLIII
aetat: LXXXVIII
am desideratissimi
Lenis Laudem
is nepotibus commendabunt
pene mamore perenniora."
"Meade, Vol. ii. Apjx-ndix, p. .^.
503] Appendix. 57
The following is a translation made by Mr., Grigsby
with " the blanks and chasms " filled with his " own knowl-
edge of the events of the Commissary's life ": "
Here lies buried
The Reverend and Honorable
James Blair, A. M.,
who was born in Scotland, was educated in the College of
Edinburgh, and emigrated to England, and thence to Virginia,
in which colony he spent fifty-eight years as an Evangelist,
Deacon, and Priest of the Church of England, and fifty-four years
as Commissary of the Bishop of London. He was the founder
and first President of William and Mary College, a member of
the Council, and subsequently its President; and as such in the
absence of the representative of the King, the Governor of the
Colony.
He sustained his various of^ces with the approbation of his
fellowmen, while he illustrated in his life those graces which
adorn the Christian character.
He had a handsome person, and in the family circle blended
cheerfulness with piety.
He was a generous friend to the poor, and was prompt in
lending assistance to all who needed it.
He was a liberal benefactor of the College during his life; and
at his death bequeathed to it his library, with the hope that his
books, which were mostly religious, might lead the student to
those things which lead to salvation.
He died on the — day' of the Calends of May ... in the year
1743, aged eighty-eight years, exhibiting to the last those graces
which make old age lovely, and lamented by all, especially by
his nephews, who have reared this stone to commemorate those
virtues which will long survive the marble that records them."
** Mr. Grigsby stated that some words in his copy might not
be correct as the inscriptions were much efifaced.
GOVERNOR THOMAS H. HICKS
OF MARYLAND
AND THE CIVIL WAR
Series XIX Nos. 11-12
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
Historical and Political Science
(Edited 1882-1901 by H. B. Adams.)
J. M. VINCENT, Editor.
History is past Politics and Politics are present History. — Freeman
GOVERNOR THOMAS H. HICKS
OF MARYLAND
AND THE CIVIL WAR
By GEORGE L. P. RADCLIFFE
BALTIMORE
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
PUBLISHED MONTHLY
NOVEMBER-DECEMBER, 1901
Copyright 1902, by
JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
^^t Bori) (^afftmort (prte»
TUB PHIFDFNWAI.D CuMPANV
BALTIMOKn, MD., U. S. A.
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface 7
Chapter
I. Earlier Career of Hicks H
II. Hicks becomes Governor of Maryland 14
III. Petitions urging the Assembling of the Legislature 21
IV. The Spirit of Compromise 36
V. Rumors of Plots against Lincoln 43
VI. Outbreak of Hostilities 51
VII. Calling of the Legislature 63
VIII. Assembling of the Legislature 71
IX. Rupture between Hicks and the Legislature 97
X. Suppression of the Legislature 110
XL The Legislature of 1861-'3 119
XII. Hicks in the Senate 135
Conclusion 139
PREFACE
This work does not attempt to cover the history of
Maryland during the early period of the Civil War; nor
even to be a full account of the political agitation in the
state at that time. I have endeavored simply to trace the
course of Governor Hicks, but in doing so, have found it
advisable to mention events which had no direct connec-
tion with him. A concise statement of these from time to
time is necessary to show the setting in which Hicks was
placed. Consequently, the importance of the topics dis-
cussed can by no means be measured by the respective
degrees of fulness of treatment given to them. The data
available for a study of the period are numerous; but they
are generally so partisan and biased in character, and
withal so contradictory, that attempts at drawing con-
clusions from them are, on the whole, hazardous. The
course of events during this period may be traced with a
fair amount of assurance, but the influences and the causes
which are behind these are wrapt in much obscurity.
The sources which have been found most valuable are:
I. Newspapers.
n. Private correspondence; especially that of Hicks,
including thousands of letters, papers, etc.
ni. " War of the Rebellion, Official Records of the
Union and Confederate Armies." Moore's Rebellion
Records are useful, especially for giving the views of the
press during the period under discussion.
IV. Official records in Annapolis, such as the Proceed-
ings of the Executive and the Letter Book of the Execu-
tive.
V. State publications; as the journals of the Legisla-
ture and the laws of Maryland.
8 Preface. [512
VI. Many helpful suggestions have been received from
those who lived at the time, and from other persons who
have given the subject thought and study.
The work was undertaken at the suggestion of Dr.
Bernard C. Steiner, whose advice has been very helpful.
In the great political struggle which immediately pre-
ceded the greater conflicts of open war and attempted
disunion, three states, lying between the North and the
South, slaveholding, yet allied in many interests with the
free states, stood out with special prominence. These
states were Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland, Kentucky,
through her favorite son, the " Great Compromiser," had
time and time again stood between the heated factions of
slavery and anti-slavery. Upon the death of Clay, his
mantle seemed to have fallen upon a Kentuckian, fully as
earnest, perhaps not so talented. In Crittenden is seen
the last of those great men who had devoted their life-long
efforts to attempts to ward ofT what has been so often
called " the irrepressible conflict."
Virginia, on account of her population and resources,
would naturally prove a strong factor to cither of the sides
upon which she should cast her lot. Bound by the strong-
est of ties to a Union which she had been so instrumental
in creating, Virginia at this time passed through a struggle
which will long be memorable; a struggle in which the
doctrines of devotion to the Union and devotion to state
sovereignty sought the mastery. Even when hope was
really gone, after the failure of the Peace Conference and
of Congress to stay the tide of disunion, Virginia still
lingered until the guns of Fort Sumter had sounded the
dcath-kncll of compromise and of peace.
The third state in tliis category absorbed attention
thrr)ughout the country — not so nnioh because of her popu-
lation, which was comparatively small; not because of her
wealth, which was not so considerable; nor was it because
her representatives in public life were men of mnisnal
513] Preface. 9
ability and prominence. Maryland was, however,
supremely important from her geographical position. In
case of the secession of Maryland, the seat of the Federal
Government would be practically within her borders.
Even if the District of Columbia should not revert to her,
at any rate the capital would be enclosed in a foreign land.
Maryland was essential to the United States Government
for the reason also that through the state passed all the
direct avenues of approach to Washington from the North.
Says the greatest of the biographers of Lincoln: "Of
more immediate and vital importance, however, than that
of any border slave state, was the course of Maryland in
the crisis." ^
It is for these reasons that the course of events in this
state was anxiously watched, and pressure of unusual de-
gree brought to bear upon her from both northern and
southern states. Consideration of these attempts and of
Maryland's action at this crucial period in American his-
tory is certainly of general importance. During this period
the figure which stood out in greatest prominence in Mary-
land is that of Thomas Holliday Hicks, not because of any
brilliancy, for he was a man of very moderate amount of
ability, but simply because as Governor of the state he
took advantage of his position to follow a certain course
which was momentous in its results. His persistent
refusal to call the Legislature, in spite of constant agita-
tion for the same during the six months which followed the
election of Lincoln, and his struggle with the so-called
" Rebel Legislature " after it had met in session, constitute
a stirring chapter in Maryland history.
^ Nicolay and Hay: Abraham Lincoln, volume iv, p. 93.
GOVERNOR THOMAS H. HICKS OF MARY-
LAND AND THE CIVIL WAR
CHAPTER I.
EARLIER CAREER OF HICKS. .
Thomas Holliday Hicks, the oldest of thirteen children,
was born on September 2, 1798, in Dorchester county,
Maryland. His early life was spent on a farm, with only
slight opportunities offered him for obtaining a good edu-
cation. Entering politics at the age of twenty-one, he
was from this time on almost constantly in positions of
public trust. He was elected sheriff of the county in 1824,
and a few years later was a member of the state legislature.
In 1836, he became a member of the state electoral college,
was a member of the legislature again, and in 1837 served
on the Governor's council. He was Register of Wills of
Dorchester county during the years 1838-185 1.
Hicks was opposed to the calling of a State Convention
in 1850, but was afterwards chosen as one of the four to
represent his county in the revision of the constitution.
This convention met in the chamber of the House of
Delegates in Annapolis on November 5, 1850. Consider-
able delay ensued before the convention organized and
settled down to work/ much to the disgust of Hicks, who
on January 13, 1851, introduced a resolution providing that
sessions be held on three nights of every week to afford
opportunities to members for making " fancy speeches and
explanations."
' Charles Chapman of Charles County was eventually chosen as
permanent chairman.
12 Governor liicks of Maryla)id and the Cii'il War. [516
On the whole Hicks took a fairly prominent part in the
discussions which were held in the convention." He was
violently opposed to the election of judges by the people
on the grounds that this method tended to diminish the
independence of the judiciary. Some of the measures ad-
vocated by Hicks were quite radical. For instance, he
desired that the convention should insert clauses forbid-
ding, for a period of five years, any of its members from
holding any office which was to be provided for by the pro-
posed constitution.' He wanted also a provision adopted
in the homestead laws by which if any man with a family
should die leaving property and money in value less than
five hundred dollars, the state should give this sum to his
family. This motion was lost.*
On several occasions during the session of the conven-
tion, Hicks had offered resolutions providing for the possi-
bility of a division of the state. On May lo, he moved
" That it shall be the duty of the Legislature wdienever a
majority of the delegates from the Eastern Shore shall re-
quire it, to pass an act authorizing the qualified voters of
the Eastern Shore of the state, at the next regular election
thereafter, to determine for or against a withdrawal of that
part of the State of Maryland, known as the Eastern Shore,
from the Western Shore, for the purpose of uniting the
same with the State of Delaware; provided such with-
drawal and union be peaceable, mutual and in accordance
with the authority of the United States." ° Hicks in de-
' No attempt will be made in this paper to consider the work of
the convention as a whole, but only certain phases of it.
' Proceedings of Maryland State Convention of 1850-1, p. 539.
* Proceedings of Maryland State Convention of 1850-I, p. 352.
'' Proceedings of Maryland State Convention. 1850-1, p. 747.
The last clause was not inserted in the previous resolutions bear-
ing on the subject introduced by Hicks.
During the stormy days of 1860-1 the charge was brought fre-
quently against Hicks that in 1851. he had advocated a secession
measure in the convention of that year. The lack of foundation of
this charge is very obvious. Hicks advocated the right of a por-
517] Earlier Career of Hicks. 13
fense of his own motion stated that he did not desire a
division of the state, but simply wanted the abstract right
of separation formally stated."
The motive which prompted Hicks to offer this resolu-
tion was the feeling which prevailed quite generally on
the Eastern Shore, that it had been unjustly treated in
being obliged to pay a proportional share of the large
state debt which had been incurred by the state in fostering
works of internal improvement. From these the Eastern
Shore claimed to have received no benefits. Hicks vehe-
mently demanded: "Are the people of the Eastern Shore
to be retained as mere serfs, hewers of wood, and drawers
of water for the city of Baltimore?" In fact, there was
noticeable at this time that feeling of fear, which has so
often found expression in Maryland history, that Balti-
more ' was planning to prey upon the rest of the state; and
that if ever that city should acquire a controlling power in
legislation, it would rule with an iron hand. The western
part of the state was also thought to have been unduly
fostered by money drawn from the state treasury.
The resolution of Hicks w^as defeated, though a majority
of the votes cast by members from the Eastern Shore were
in favor of it." In the end, the convention opposed the
undertaking of internal improvements by the state.'
tion of a state to demand a separation from the remaining part.
No question of withdrawing from the Government of the United
States is involved.
' Debates of Constitutional Convention of 1850-1.
Hicks, a number of years later, declared in a speech in the
United States Senate, that he had introduced the resolution, not
to declare an " inherent right," but simply to give the people an
opportunity to vote on the question. — Congressional Globe, 1862-3,
volume iv, p. 545.
However from a consideration of the speeches Hicks made in
the convention, it seems clear that his memory had failed him in
the matter.
' Debates of Maryland Constitutional Convention, April 10, 1851.
* Vote of 27 to 46. Proceedings of Maryland Constitutional Con-
vention, 1850-1, p. 747.
'Constitution of 1851, Article iii, Section 22.
CHAPTER II.
HICKS BECOMES GOVERNOR OF MARYLAND.
On the formation of the American, or Know Nothini^
party, Hicks left the Whig party, then in a state of rapid
decline, and became associated with the former.' By a
provision of the Constitution of 1851, the Eastern Shore
was entitled to the Governor to be elected in 1857.' The
convention of the Know Nothing party met on July 23,
and five candidates were placed in nomination." Hicks,
who had been one of the lowest men, received the strength
of the Purnell party on the fifth ballot. On the seventh
ballot he was only one vote short of a majority, whereupon
;i member changed his vote in Hicks' favor. The nomina-
tion was then made unanimous. That afternoon Hicks
appeared before the convention, and in accepting the
nomination, declared his abiding belief in the principle of
" America for Americans only."
The campaign which followed was characterized by much
excitement and employment of personal abuse. According
to the returns, Hicks carried Baltimore by 9639, and the
state as a whole by 8460. Claims of wholesale fraud were
made, and certainly much illegality in the election occurred,
though whether suflficient to have changed the result can-
not be estimated satisfactorily. On January 13, 1858,
Hicks delivered his inaugural address in the Senate
* In early life Hicks was a democrat. Speech by him in United
States Senate, Cong. Globe, 1863-4, volume iv, p. 2263.
' Article 11, Section V.
' Purnel! of Worcester County: Hicks of Dorchester County:
Cox of Talbot County; Sykcs of Harford County: and Ricand
of Kent County.
* Baltimore Sun, July 24, 1857; Baltimore American. July 24, 1857.
519] Hicks becomes Governor of Maryland. 15
Chamber, and entered upon his duties as Governor of
Maryland. On the whole, his speech embodied the tenets
of the Know Nothing party. He spoke of a necessity of
protecting the American workman; the granting of money
by the state to sectarian schools was approved of only
under certain conditions. He expressed a fear of the
growing population of free negroes, and " Maryland's
favorite scheme of colonization" of the blacks was advo-
cated. In regard to the great question which was dis-
tracting the country, and which was soon to reach a solu-
tion by resort to war, Hicks declared that "Maryland is de-
voted to the Union and all of the states," and has " never
listened to the suggestions of disunion from the Southern
states, and has refused to join with the misguided people
of the Northern states in their assaults on slavery."
The relations between Hicks and the Legislature of 1858
will not be dwelt upon here, as the subject has received
ample treatment elsewhere.^ The Know Nothing party
had reached the time of its decline, and in the elections of
November, 1859, lost the Legislature to the Democrats.
The raid of John Brown in October, 1859, had revived
more strongly than ever the fear of a negro insurrection;
while the way in which Brown was regarded by many
persons in the northern states served to intensify the
bitterness of feeling which existed between the two great
sections of the country. The Maryland Legislature, with
a view of meeting any outbreaks among the negroes, and
also of preventing radical abolitionists from fostering and
assisting such uprisings, appropriated $70,000 for the pur-
chase by the Governor and the Adjutant General of arms
and military accoutrements for distribution among local
military companies throughout the state.
Almost as soon as the Legislature met, resolutions were
" Documents of the Senate of 1858, Document " B."
" Know Nothing Party in Maryland, Dr. Frederick Schmeck-
ebier.
16 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [520
])assed which declared that any confederation with the
RepubHcans in Congress by representatives from Maryland
would be in direct opposition to the wishes of the people
of the state. Subsequently Henry Winter Davis was cen-
sured for voting for Pennington, a Republican, for Speaker
of the House of Representatives.
On February lo, the House of Delegates requested
Hicks to submit to it a copy of the correspondence which
had passed recently between Governor Gist of South Caro-
lina and himself. The latter promptly complied. Gist had
written to Hicks enclosing resolutions, unanimously passed
by the South Carolina Legislature, which requested Mary-
land to send deputies to a convention of the slave states
to consider measures for " concerted action." Hicks in
reply deprecated any measures looking toward secession.
Gist retorted that he had said nothing about secession.
Nevertheless, Hicks attempted to show him that a logi-
cal interpretation of his letter certainly indicated an advo-
cacy of disunion.' The correspondence between the gov-
ernors, and the resolutions of the Legislature of South
Carolina, together with the resolutions of the Legislature
of Mississippi, which had accepted the invitation of South
Carolina and had urged the slave states to send deputies
to Atlanta on the first Monday in June,* were considered
by a joint committee of the two houses of the Maryland
Legislature. Resolutions were framed and adopted which
expressed indignation at tlie mctliods ])ursuc(l by tlio
opponents of slavery, but at the same time stated a deter-
mination " to cling to the l^nion as long as its great prin-
ciples can be preserved ami the blessing for wliich it was
intended can be secured, but our deep and solemn convic-
tion that the Union must be torn in fragments unless equal
rights to all sections of the country arc sacredly preserved.
'House Documents (Md.), i860. Document T; Senate Docu-
ments (Md.), i860, Document F.
* House Documents (Md.), i860. Document GG.
521] Hicks becomes Governor of Maryland. 17
We also respectfully but earnestly desire to assure our
brethren of South Carolina, that should the hour ever
arrive when the Union must be dissolved, Maryland will
cast her lot with her sister states of the South and abide
their fortune to the fullest extent." Thus the Maryland
Legislature put itself upon record."
The year of i860 would be notable in American history
because of the political turmoil by which it is characterized,
even if it did not mark the beginning of the struggle for
disunion. The Democratic party was still strongly en-
trenched throughout the country. The Whig party had
ceased to be a political factor, and its elements had been
absorbed in the North and West mainly by the rapidly
growing Republican party; while in the " Border and
Southern states " the old spirit of compromise was repre-
sented by various parties, more or less local in extent and
different in nature and aims, which may be classed roughly
under the title of the Union or American parties. This
element, considered as a factor in legislation, w^as hope-
lessly in the minority, but at times held the balance of
power.
Plans to unite all the forces which were in opposition to
the Democratic party were frequently considered, especi-
ally in the councils of the American party. The latter
based its hopes upon the conservative elements in the
Republican party gaining the mastery over the radical
wing, which was represented by such men as Greeley and
Chase, and which was strongly opposed to any compro-
mise on the slavery question. The former faction was
thought to be willing to sacrifice a part of the tenets of the
party for the sake of forming a coalition against the Demo-
crats. As stated above, Henry Winter Davis, an American,
or Know Nothing in Congress from Maryland, voted for
Pennington, a Republican, for Speaker of the House of
"House Documents (Md.), i860, Document KK; Senate Docu-
ments (Md.), i860 — Document CC.
36
18 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [522
Representatives — an act which called forth a vote of cen-
sure from the Maryland Legislature in i860. In doing so,
Davis believed that the Republicans, in return for the
assistance of the Americans in Congress, would be willing
to support Bates or whoever should be the nominee of that
party for President."
However as time passed, the chances that the Republi-
cans would support the candidate of the American party
for the presidency constantly grew less, if it may be said
that such chances ever existed."
When the time for making nominations arrived, it was
very clear that no cooperation would take place between
the Republicans and the Americans. Bell and Everett
were then selected by the latter as standard bearers on the
platform of the " Constitution, the Union, and the enforce-
ment of the laws." The hopelessness of carr}'ing the elec-
tion was apparent to the most enthusiastic of the Ameri-
cans unless a bargain could be made if the election should
be thrown to Congress. Bell himself only expressed hopes
of carrying six states.''
In the campaign which followed, Hicks heartily sup-
ported Bell and Everett, and denounced the parties of both
" Democracy and Abolitionism " as being " sectional and
tending to a dissolution of the Union." " As Maryland had
been the banner state of the American party in 1856, strong
"Letter of H. W. Davis to T. H. Hicks, written in February,
1859 (MS.).
" Lincoln said in a speech in Cincinnati in September, 1859, that
putting a compromise man on the Republican ticket would not
gain any slave state except possibly Maryland and would bo disas-
trous to the party in the North. — Nicolay and Hay: Abraham
Lincoln, volume i, 592. Such ideas soon dominated the Repub-
lican party.
" Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky. Maryland, North Carolina and
Virginia. See letter of Bell to Hicks, June 2, i860 (MS.)-
" I^'ltcr of Hicks to Boston Clipper, May 25. i860 (MS.).
It was reported that Hicks had supported Lincoln, but this state-
ment he denies most strenuously in letters written both at this
time and subsequently.
523] Hicks becomes Governor of Maryland. 19
hopes were entertained of carrying the state again, though
the party had lost the Legislature the year before, and
very recently the municipal election in Baltimore.
The pro-slavery sentiment of the state was naturally
inclined to favor the radical wing of the Democratic party,
and to accept the advanced views enunciated by Maryland's
gifted son, Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case. Con-
sequently Douglas polled less than six thousand votes in
the state. Lincoln did not receive half of this number.
Baltimore furnished about a half of the entire Republican
vote; Allegany county about one-fourth. The northern
counties and those of the western part of the state fur-
nished nearly all of the remainder. Several counties gave
the Republican candidate only one vote, and two none at
all. The campaign had been an exciting one, and resulted
in the selection of Breckenridge electors by a small plu-
rality.'" The indefinable feeling of uneasiness and alarm
which sprang up in the Southern states as a result of the
election of Lincoln was very noticeable in Maryland. The
accession to power of the " Black Republican Party " and
the plans, according to rumor, of the " Abolitionists " were
met by inflammatory utterances throughout the South.
George William Brown, who though elected as a reform
candidate in opposition to the Americans, yet had zeal-
ously supported Bell and Everett, subsequently spoke in
his inaugural address, as Mayor of Baltimore, of this un-
easiness, but insisted that the election of Lincoln presented
no just cause for disruption. " The policy of Mary-
land," he said, " is to adhere to the Union." " Yet even
before November 20, at least two of the newspapers of the
state, the Centreville Advocate and the Patapsco Enter-
prise, had shown decided leanings toward secession."
In the dissatisfaction which prevailed generally in Mary-
'* The Sun of November 24, i860, gives as official: Breckenridge,
42,482; Bell, 41,760; Douglas, 5,966; Lincoln, 2,294.
" Baltimore American, November 13, i860.
'" Ibid., November 19, i860.
20 Governor Hicks of Maryland and tJw Civil War. [524
latul witli the election of Lincoln, Hicks shared, and looked
with gloomy forebodings upon the result of the elevation
to power of that party which was so strongly anti-slavery.
However, it is quite certain that he was not at this time
in favor of the use of force to prevent Lincoln's inaugura-
tion, as has been frequently stated. The letter written by
him to E. H. Webster on March 9, i860, has been cited
freely as damaging evidence. The letter is best regarded
as an imprudent attempt at humor between a governor of
a state and an intimate friend. Undoubtedly, the matter
would never have come up for discussion if the opponents
of Hicks, after the war had begun, had not seized this
opportunity of trying to show inconsistency in his course."
" Speech of Hicks in United States Senate on February 28, 1863,
and correspondence between Hicks and Webster (MS.).
State of Maryland, Executive Chamber,
Annapolis, November 9, i860.
Hon. E. H. Webster.
My Dear Sir: — I have pleasure in acknowledging receipt of your
favor introducing a very clever gentleman to my acquaintance
(though a Democrat). I regret to say that we have at this time
no arms on hand to distribute, but assure you at the earliest pos-
sible moment your company shall have arms; they have complied
with all required of them on your part. We have some delay
in consequence of contracts with Georgia and Alabama ahead of
us, and we expect at an early date an additional supply, and of
the first received your people shall be furnished. Will they be
good men to send out to kill Lincoln and his men? If not, I
suppose the arms would be better sent South. How does the late
election sit with you? Tis too bad. Harford nothing to reproach
herself for.
Your obedient servant,
THOMAS H. HICKS.
The letter was published frequently during the year after it was
written.
CHAPTER III.
PETITIONS URGING THE ASSEMBLING OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
As soon as the people of the state had recovered some-
what from the uncertain feehng of bewilderment which
followed the announcement of the result of the election,
petitions began to pour in upon Hicks. Some of these
urged a convening of the Legislature in special session; the
others opposed any such course. By the former, no defi-
nite line or lines of policy seem to have been agreed upon
as to what the Legislature should do after being assembled.
In the main, however, a common desire was expressed
that this body should take suitable steps to preserve peace
in the state, and to guard the honor and welfare of Mary-
land if these should be imperiled. The people of Maryland
by a vast majority were willing to unite with the states fur-
ther South in protesting strenuously against the failures to
execute the Fugitive Slave Laws. They saw in the election
of Lincoln a blow which threatened not only the extension
of slavery, but also the formal protection of that institution
by the highest authorities in the land. The disunion move-
ment in the South was anxiously watched, and a feverish
desire prevailed that the state through its legal authorities
should take some formal action in the crisis; preferably to
make some attempt to stay the hand of disunion, but at
the same time to secure from the incoming administration
some guaranty for the protection of slavery — for at this
time the secession of Maryland was desired by only a small
portion of the inhabitants. A somewhat larger portion
looked upon it as a final resort. The question of secession
of the state was not considered, in the main, by the peti-
22 Governor I/icks of Maryland and flic Chil War. [526
tions which were presented, nor indeed by the writings
and speeches of the month following the election. Later,
when the states in the South began to pass ordinances of
this nature, the feeling that Maryland should break from
the Union grew stronger.
On the 27th of November, a memorial signed by Ex-
Governor Pratt, Sprigg Harwood, and other prominent
citizens, was presented to Hicks, requesting him to sum-
mon the Legislature in special session inmiediately, in
view of the gravity of the situation. On November
27 he replied, making his first public utterance on the
subject. He contended that a session of the Legislature
would only increase the excitement, then becoming too
prevalent in Maryland. He expressed his entire sympathy
with the South for the wrongs it claimed to endure, and
his indignation at the refusal of the Northern people to
enforce the provision of the Fugitive Slave laws. The Gov-
ernor likewise made the very pointed suggestion thai it
would be better for the people to await the policy of the
incoming administration before rushing to conclusions as
to what would probably be done. He expressed his belief
that in spite of the extreme views of some of the prominent
Republicans, on the whole, the people of the North were
too conservative to urge radical measures against slavery.
The low condition of the finances of the state and the
probable expenses of an extra session were dwelt upon.
Tn this letter and in later utterances Hicks did not claim to
follow the dictates of his own judgment alone, but insisted
that the people of the state as a whole were opposed to the
calling of the Legislature.'
From this time on mass-meetings and similar gatherings
were held all over the state. A consideration of the
accounts of these meetings does not lead to very satisfac-
tory conclu'^ions. Correspondents of Govermtr TTicl-:s and
* Letter to Pratt was published in the Baltimore American,
November 29, i860, and exists in manuscript.
527] Petitions iirgiiig the Assembling of Legislature. 23
of the newspapers show opinions so evidently biased, and
make such contradictory statements, that attempts, even
of a general nature, to form estimates of the numerical
strength of the adherents of the different parties in the
state are extremely hazardous. On the whole, the asser-
tion may be made that at this period a large majority of
these meetings adopted resolutions which expressed
strong hopes of seeing Maryland remain in the Union,
while it would seem that the larger number of them
desired a session of the Legislature.^ The resolutions
adopted in the western part of the state abound in pro-
testations of devotion to the Union. In the southern
part of Maryland the resolutions passed are mainly taken
up with a recital of wrongs which the South was said to
endure. As an instance of the intense feeling in that
section, a meeting which was held at Beantown, Charles
county, requested all the Republicans who had voted for
Lincoln to leave the county by January i, i86i. No
general exodus was necessary to gratify this " request,"
since the entire number of persons in the entire country
who had incurred displeasure by their choice for President
wzs only six.*
The Annapolis Gazette was generally believed to be the
organ of Hicks, though the latter denied that any paper
could claim its utterances to be possessed of any ofificial
sanction from him.* Still Hicks at times used this paper
as his mouthpiece, and its columns were eagerly watched
to detect some evidence that he was weakening in his
determination not to call the Legislature together.
On December 5, i860, Hicks wrote to Captain Contee,
of Prince George's county, in reply to a letter in which
^ No absolute accuracy is claimed for this statement. Even if
true, it proves but little, for at this time the opponents of the
Legislature were not very active.
° Baltimore American, December 3, i860; Baltimore Sun, Novem-
ber 24, i860.
* Letter to Legrand from Hicks (MS.).
24 Governor Hicks of Maryland and tlic Civil War. [528
Contee, in view of the crisis which existed, had urged the
necessity of all persons subordinating all parly and sec-
tional feelings to concerted efforts to save the Union.
Hicks fully agreed with him and deprecated the attempts
of " reckless and designing men to precipitate a dissolu-
tion of the Union before the people shall have had time
for the reflection so imperatively demanded by the vast
interests involved in the threatened separation, whether
that separation be peaceful or bloody " etc/ In an address
delivered at the Maryland Institute Building, on February
1, i86i, S. Teackle Wallis declared that this letter to Con-
tee indicated the high water-mark of Hicks' secession doc-
trines. However, it cannot be said that Hicks actually
advocated secession then, though he came quite close to
doing so. In previous letters and public utterances upon
the subject he had, it is true, intimated that a time might
come when the South would not be able to submit if exces-
sive insults were heaped upon her. Now Hicks took the
stand that the South would not be justified in leaving the
Union, even if the existing condition of affairs should be
maintained much longer. But he still insisted that the
entire question was far too serious to be decided on the
spur of the moment, and without weighing long and care-
fully the grave consequences which would surely result
from the taking of any radical step. In this letter Hicks
expressed as strongly as ever his devotion to the Union
and his intention to do what he could to prevent a separa-
tion of the states."
The delegates who had represented Harford county in
the Legislature during the preceding session wrote to
E. G. Kilbourn, Speaker of that body, stating that if all
the members of the Legislature resign, Hicks might be
* Correspondence between Contee and Hicks exists in manu-
script and also was published in the daily papers of the period.
Hicks at the time requested permission from Contee to publish
the correspondence.
• Baltimore Exchange, December 19, i860.
529] Petitions urging the Assembling of Legislature. 25
induced to issue a call for a new election. Kilbourn
replied that there was no reason to believe that Governor
Hicks would take measures to bring about the election of
a new Legislature. In Kilbourn's mind there existed ser-
ious objections to the leaving of the executive arm of the
government to cope alone with the situation, and thereby
allowing Governor Hicks further opportunities of misrep-
resenting, as he claimed, the will of the people. At any
rate, it was not advisable in such perilous times, to have
the Legislature out of existence, even for a short time;
on the contrary, it should be ready at a moment's warning
to take counsel for the public welfare. Meanwhile the
efforts of those who disapproved of the convening of the
Legislature, as being inexpedient and unnecessary, by no
means ceased. Hicks was constantly in receipt of letters
which sustained his course.
The situation in Maryland soon attracted attention in
the country at large, and Hicks' policy of inaction was
discussed widely by the press. Senator Crittenden, Ex-
President Pierce, and President Buchanan' were among
those who expressed their approval of the course followed
by Hicks. Vice-President Breckenridge was quoted as
having expressed views of the same nature. The influence
that an endorsement of Hicks by Breckenridge would have
had upon the people of Maryland was counteracted by a
public letter from him in which he indignantly denied the
statement attributed to him.* A correspondent in Rome,
Italy, wrote Hicks that the press of England and France
speak in " terms of the highest approval of your course."'
The attitude of the newspapers in general of the Southern
states in commenting upon Hicks may easily be surmised.
During the winter of 1860-61, commissioners from three of
' Rev. William Hamilton in a letter to Hicks, January 27, 1861
(MS.).
* Was written to the Baltimore Exchange and appeared in its
columns on January 4, i86r.
' Letter of E. S. Courtney to Hicks, February 5, 1861 (MS.).
26 Governor Hides of Maryland and the Civil War. [530
the Southern states waited upon him, to urge cooperation
with them in founding a new confederacy.'"
As Mississippi was on the eve of secession, Major A. H.
Handy, a native of Maryland but for many years a citizen
of Mississippi, was sent by the latter to urge Maryland to
leave the Union without waiting for preconcerted action
by the slave states; but in the meantime to come to some
understanding with Mississippi as to a policy in the future.
Hicks refused to see Handy officially on the plea that the
Constitution of the United States forbad any " league,"
etc., between the various states without the consent of
Congress. However, he had a long informal talk with him,
and on the following day sent to him a written reply which
was given to the public, and is therefore somewhat of the
nature of a proclamation. The position taken by Hicks
does not dilifer materially from the expression of his views
in previous utterances. Sympathy for the South, devotion
to the Union, inadvisability of hasty and violent measures,
and the dangers to be incurred by Maryland as a " small
border state " in case of war are the main ideas expressed."
Before he returned to Mississippi, Handy addressed a
mass-meeting at the Maryland Institute Building, in which
he declared that it was necessary that Maryland should
leave the Union immediately. The crowd present, in the
manner which is characteristic of such gatherings, ex-
pressed vigorously both approval and disapproval; while
a " call for three cheers for Governor Hicks was responded
to with a mingled chorus of cheers, groans and hisses." "
Hicks took no trouble to conceal his lack of confidence
in the members of the Legislature. Tn the preceding ses-
sion considerable friction had occurred between the Gov-
" Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.
" The letter exists in manuscript and was published at the time.
"Baltimore American, December 20, 1861; Baltimore RxchanRe,
December 20, 1861, etc.
Handy visited Somerset County before his return and made
addresses there. Letter of J. A. Spence to Hicks (MS.)-
531] Petitions urging the Assembling of Legislature. 27
ernor and the Assembly, which had been controlled in
both houses by the Democrats. The position of Hicks
was very galling to many of those who advocated a con-
vening of the Legislature. They objected to his assertion
that he alone, and not the duly elected representatives of
the people, was competent and cool-headed enough to act
discreetly and advisedly in such a crisis.
What would have been the course of the Legislature if
it had been convened at the beginning of the year is, of
course, a matter for speculation only. In those of the bor-
der slave states in which the legislatures were in session,
the advocates and opponents of secession were represented
by parties of almost equal strength, and definite action was
seldom taken before protracted struggles had taken place.
In Maryland very many of those who advocated a special
session of the Legislature insisted that they did not want
the state to secede, but simply desired an opportunity to
attempt to act as mediator between the heated factions of
both the North and the South; or at the farthest, to join
with the Southern states in demanding guarantees that the
incoming administration would require the repeal of the
obnoxious features of the Personal Liberty laws and the
enforcement of the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Laws.
Hicks in reply referred to the fact that Speaker Kilbourn
had heartily endorsed the resolutions of a mass-meeting
which had asked for the secession of the state; besides
other members of the Legislature had expressed views
which favored disunion." But it was said, granted that the
Legislature would take steps looking towards secession,
what right has Governor Hicks to thwart the expression
of the will of the people as expressed through its chosen
representatives? Hicks retorted that the people could not
well express their convictions in the present crisis through
legislators chosen eighteen months before the question at
issue had really come up. The only way to obtain the
" Proclamation to People of Maryland, January 3, 1861 (MS.).
28 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [533
wishes of the people, he held, was by a convention," but
he insisted that the people were in an excited condition,
and consequently not in a mood to give tiie matter the
consitleration due in view of the gravity of the (juestions
involved. There was nothing to be gained by haste, but in
a policy of prudent delay, Maryland's true welfare lay.
Should she, after weighing well the consequences of break-
ing away from the Union, decide to sever ties hallowed by
long associations, and should she care to imperil one of the
most important of her domestic institutions, slavery, by
depriving herself of the constitutional safeguards, weakly
enforced though they were by the citizens of the North,
should she care to bring, as it were, Canada to her borders,
surely there was time for deliberation. Hicks scorned the
suggestion that the Southern states would not be glad to
welcome Maryland into a Southern confederacy at any
time, in spite of some of the vehement remarks of some of
the Southern leaders and the editorials of some of the
newspapers, especially the Charleston Mercury, to the con-
trary. Before the inauguration of Lincoln, and even some-
what later, very few of those in Maryland who denied the
right of secession, believed that coercion would be used
to force a state to return to her allegiance to the Union.
Hicks did not contemplate that forcible means would be
adopted by the United States Government, but he had an
idea that bloodshed would result before the division in the
country was completed. From the horror of such a fate,
he expressed a desire to preserve Maryland.
As the year i860 drew to its close, excitement steadily
increased and public meetings were more and more fre-
quently called. One of the most important of these was
held in Baltimore, at the Univcrsalist Church, on Calvert
street, on December 22. A committee was appointed
'• Hicks declared in his message to the Legislature on December
4, 1861, that he would have summoned a convention if he could have
done so without convening the Legislature. See Document A,
House Documents, 1861-2.
533] Petitions urging the Assembling of Legislature. 29
to await upon Hicks and to urge him to call the Legislature
together immediately. Coleman Yellott, afterwards a rad-
ical supporter of the cause of the Confederacy in the
Legislature of the following year, had stated in the meeting
that he had just come from an interview with Governor
Hicks, who had agreed with him on every point except that
of the necessity of a session of the Legislature. Hicks had
said that he had spent sleepless nights over the situation,
and desired most earnestly to follow the voice of Maryland.
The committee found Hicks still unwilling to summon
the Legislature. Hicks took the occasion to deny having
endorsed Henry Winter Davis, and read to the committee
the letter which he had written to Senator Crittenden, in
which it was rumored Hicks had eulogized Davis., H. W.
Davis was decidedly unpopular with the sympathizers of
the disunion movement in the South, and indeed with the
rank and file of the people generally in the state, because
of his pronounced views in opposition to the usual inter-
pretations of the doctrine of states rights, and because
of his leanings towards the Republican party. A contro-
versy " subsequently took place between Hicks and Le-
grand, the chairman of the committee which had awaited
upon Hicks, as to how far the words of the former could be
construed as an endorsement of Davis. Hicks then de-
cided to make public the letter to Crittenden.^' Hicks' lan-
guage is not strictly an endorsement of Davis, but com-
mends his " honesty and pluck." The substance of the
letter is of the nature of an appeal to Crittenden to use
all of his efforts to preserve the Union. Hicks is almost
pathetic in the expression of his hopes that in some way
this may be done.
On December 28, i860, a meeting of a number of the
members of the Senate of Maryland took place in Balti-
" Papers bearing on this controversy are to be found in manu-
script. The press of the day also contained accounts.
"The letter to Crittenden was published in the Baltimore Ameri-
can, January 8, 1861.
30 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [53-i
more by whom a memorial was drawn up and sent to Hicks
requesting him to summon the Legislature. Eleven sena-
tors signed the petition and five wrote approving letters."
Governor Hicks replied in a letter of January 5 to
this request." He sharply resented the action of the
senators as an attempt to dictate to him his policy, and
quoted the Declaration of Rights of Maryland and the
Constitution of the state to prove that the Executive and
Legislative departments of governments are entirely inde-
pendent of each other; and claimed that the power of
summoning in extra session the Legislature lay entirely in
the hands of the Governor of the state. He ofifered, how-
ever, to consider the memorial as coming merely from citi-
zens of the state. Alongside with this reply, he published a
copy of a " Proclamation to the People of IMaryland," dated
January 3. Hicks had during the previous five weeks
published letters which had set forth his views, but
he had never made a formal statement to the public at
large. The proclamation bears traces of careful prepara-
tion and consists of an exhaustive exposition of the argu-
ments which Hicks had previously used against the
advisability of convening the Legislature, supplemented by
statements of other arguments which to Hicks seemed
weighty. Pie condemned as strongly as ever the evasions
of the Fugitive Slave Laws, and even declared that he
hoped never to live in a state where slavery did not exist.
He admitted the possibility of a division of the country,
and the justness with which the South could demand this
as a last resort. Yet he said that any attempt by the
" One of the signers, Senator Goldsborough of Dorchester
County, the home of Hicks, wrote on January 2, 1861, to the Bal-
timore American, stating- that he believed that his constituents
differed widely from him in the matter. Senator Kimmel of Fred-
erick County was among those who refused to sign the memorial
of the senators. He shortly afterwards wrote a letter enthusiasti-
cally praising Hicks and suggesting him as a candidate for the
Vice-Presidency in the next election. — Letter of Kimmel to Repre-
sentative J. M. Clayton, January 21, 1861 (MS.).
" Baltimore American January 7, i8^t.
535] Petitions urgi)ig the Assembling of Legislature. 31
Southern states to break away, at that time, would be
unjust and essentially non-efifective. Apparently the ideas
of secession and revolution were somewhat confused in his
mind. The arguments he made use of were not those
which are based upon ethics, questions of " inalienable
rights " or of constitutionality, but upon the consideration
of the probable effects of an attempt at secession upon the
material welfare of the state. He closed with a touching
appeal to be allowed to spend his few remaining days in
the Union in which he had lived so long. The proc-
lamation of Hicks, taken as a whole, is an exceedingly
good presentation of the arguments in favor of a policy of
inactivity, and as such received favorable comment
throughout the North."
On January lo, a large meeting was held at the
Maryland Institute Building. " Union " speeches were
made by William Collins, Augustus C. Bradford, Reverdy
Johnson, and others. The speech of Johnson was especi-
ally strong, and embodied a denial not only of the advis-
ability of secession, but also of the constitutional right
thereto.
On the same day a conference of prominent citizens of
different political affiliations met and discussed various
means to remedy the evils which were distracting the
country. S. Teackle Wallis submitted the majority report
which urged Hicks to summon the Legislature. In case
he should refuse to do so, a committee was appointed
which was to invite the people of Maryland to send dele-
" Just before publishing the proclamation Hicks made a visit
to the Eastern Shore and claims to have found a general endorse-
ment of his course there. However feehngs were running so high
that he was threatened with personal violence on the streets of
Cambridge by an angry opponent. — H. Thompson to Hicks, Janu-
ary 8, i86i (MS.).
An enthusiastic correspondent m New York sent verses which
he alleged were written by a "beautiful and talented lady" who
fell into a poetic rhapsody on reading Hicks' proclamation. The
document exists in manuscript and was widely published at the
time.
32 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [536
gates to a state convention. The minority report was very
long, and declared Maryland's true policy to be " masterly
inactivity." It questioned the right of secession, and stated
that if redress should be denied the South, that the South-
ern people would be justified in taking decisive action on
the grounds of the right of revolution against tyranny.
Indirectly, an approval was expressed of Hicks' course.
The minority report was voted down on the plea that the
conference had assembled only for consultation purposes,
and not to set forward any definite principles.
The conference adjourned without passing either set of
resolutions. On the following day it reassembled and
passed the resolutions to the efifect:
I. Maryland is true to the American Union.
II. Constitutional measures are sufficient to remedy the
present crisis. The Crittenden compromise is favored.
III. A committee to be appointed to urge the Governor
to assign the last Monday in January as a day when the
people of the state could decide whether or not a conven-
tion should be held. If the vote should be in the affirma-
tive, the Governor tlien to be requested to appoint the
second Monday in February as the day on which the
people should select their delegates to the convention.
These resolutions were of the nature of a compromise.
An attempt had been made to include in them a clause
condemning any coercion of the seceding states. The con-
ference, however, decided that it was best not to consider
that matter. The opinions of the members of the confer-
ence, as far as expressed in the meetings, indicate a strong
op])osition to the use of coercion by the United States
Government; while, at the same time, the belief was almost
general that the Union should be preserved if that c(nild
be done with honor."'
"The committee consisted of: R. B. Carmichael of Queen Anne
County; W. T. GoldsborouKh of Dorchester County; Ross Winans
of IJaltimore City; A. B. Hagnor of Anne Arundel County; A. B.
Davis of Montgomery County.
537] Petitions urging the Assembling of Legislature. 33
Several interviews took place between the members of
the committee and Hicks. However, nothing more favor-
able could be obtained from the latter than a promise to
consider again seriously the question of calling the Legis-
lature, if Congress should fail to pass measures which
would bring reconciliation." About the middle of Jan-
uary Hicks received from Governor Curtin, of Pennsyl-
vania, a letter borne by the President of the State
Senate and two other citizens. These commissioners con-
gratulated Hicks upon the stand he had taken, and ex-
pressed a desire to come to some agreement with him as
to a common course to be followed. Hicks declared that
he could not receive them officially; nevertheless, he had a
long interview with them. In the reply " sent to Curtin,
he restated his determination to do all in his power to pre-
serve the Union.'^
On January 24 a letter appeared in a Baltimore
paper, signed by Hicks and purporting to be written in
reply to a communication from the Governor of Alabama,
which was brought by Hon. J. L. M. Curry, who, as com-
missioner, had been empowered to treat with Maryland
with a view to forming a " mutual league " for the protec-
tion of the rights of the Southern states.'*
This letter in reply to Curry attracted considerable at-
tention, as it was claimed by some persons that in it, Hicks
went back upon his previous utterances. S. Teackle
Wallis in a speech on February i, 1861, in which he
"^ See accounts in Baltimore Sun, Baltimore American, Balti-
more Exchange, etc. Also, in manuscript, from Hicks to Car-
michael, January 15, 1861 ; to Hicks from Carmichael, January 15,
1861; Ibid., January 16, 1861; from Hicks to Dr. Jas. J. Duvall, etc.
*'■ Hicks was strongly advised at this time by some of his friends
not to appear to be on very intimate terms with Curtin, since such
an action on his part would be construed as a form of an alliance
with the "Black Republicans"; and thereby the strength of the
conservative Union men in Maryland would be weakened seri-
ously.— Letter of William Price to Hicks, January 16, 1861 (MS.).
" Baltimore American.
" Letter now exists in manuscript.
37
34 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [538
eloquently and bitterly arraigned Hicks for duplicity,
claimed to trace a pronounced advocacy of secession
through the previous letters and ])roclaniation of the gov-
ernor, but declared that in the reply to Mr. Curry, Hicks
took an entirely different stand. This charge is not en-
tirely justified. Hicks had practically admitted the ab-
stract right of secession, but had never advocated an imme-
diate assertion of that right. He had said that circum-
stances did not justify disunion, though unless the North-
ern people should redress the wrongs of the South, he
would favor a separation from the Union. He did con-
tradict liimself in this respect in that he now declared that
Maryland would be unwilling to leave the Union for any
cause (the italics are his).
He held that secession would soon bring on a war,
which would mean ruin to Maryland; and rather than that
the state should seek a separation from the Union, she
would have her rights enforced under the Constitution
of the United States. The argument advanced that seces-
sion, even if peaceful, by bringing a hostile country to her
northern boundaries, would mean the gradual though ab-
solute downfall of slavery in the state, was undoubtedly
sound.
Hicks in this letter did not really consider the right of
secession. He merely declared that every state in the
Union was prohibited under the Constitution of the United
States to enter into " any league " with other states, but
he was silent as to whether the Union itself which existed
between the states could be broken. On the whole, the
tone of the letter shows that Hicks was drifting slowly
towards the position of unconditional adherence to the
Union. Besides the overtures of the commissioners who
came personally from Mississippi, Alabama and Petmsyl-
vania," Governor Hicks was constantly in receipt of com-
munications of various natures from the governors, Icgis-
" A commissioner from Georgia came later.
539] Petitions urging the Assembling of Legislature. 35
latures, or conventions of other states. Those from the
Northern states commended his policy; those from the
Southern states either urged upon Hicks the necessity of
some form of cooperation among the slave states, or gave
notice that acts of secession had been passed/' The gov-
ernor of Mississippi deemed the matter to be so urgent
that he telegraphed to Governor Hicks an announcement
of the withdrawal of Mississippi from the Union — an act
which called forth a forcible though somewhat rash com-
ment from Hicks."
''Among the states referred to are: Indiana, Tennessee, Georgia,
Louisiana, Texas.
^^ Hicks wrote on the envelope in which the telegram came:
" Mississippi has seceded and gone to the devil." (MS.).
CHAPTER IV.
THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISE.
Though Hicks had steadily decHned to enter into any
" league or mutual understanding " with the commission-
ers sent from the several states, yet he desired some
manner of cooperation among the border slave states
Vvhich would have for its object, the bringing about of a
compromise between the parties of the North and South.
With this in view, a correspondence was entered into with
the governors of Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and Mis-
souri.' It is not clear what Hicks had in mind, and how-
far the policy desired by himself differed from the plans
which the commissioners from Mississippi and Alabama
had advocated. From a consideration of the limited data
available, it seems that he reckoned that the border slave
states, acting as a unit,' could hold the balance of power
between the North and the South; and that these states
would naturally be inclined to moderation and compro-
mise, since they had felt most severely the injuries com-
plained of by the " Cotton states "; while at the same time,
they realized the dangers likely to result from a breaking
up of the Union. The opponents of Hicks severely criti-
cised him for this move and declared that he had not the
right to pledge Maryland in any way whatever to any line
of policy without first consulting the Legislature.'
' This correspondence was referred to in his letters to Pratt,
Handy, Proclamation of January 3, and in fact in nearly all of
Hicks' public utterances at this time.
'This idea is but an outgrowth of the plans so strenuously urged
by the followers of Clay and Crittenden; and in another form
constituted the platform of the Constitutional Union party in i860.
'See editorial in Baltimore Exchange on January 28, etc.
541] The Spirit of Compromise. 37
The policy urged by Hicks — though it cannot by any
means be said to have been original with him — was not
without its merits; and if put into operation, might have
prevented hostilities had it not been that the day for com-
promises had passed and the " irrepressible conflict " had
indeed begun.
Yet this movement for consultation was not entirely
without fruit. Virginia took the lead on January 19, 1861,
by the issuance of an invitation to all the states in the
Union to send commissioners to a conference which was
to meet in Washington on February 4, 1861. Like-
wise Virginia sent commissioners to the President of the
United States and to the different seceded states asking
that all parties abstain from any " acts tending to produce
a collision of arms pending the efforts of conference to
secure a basis of compromise." *
The right of Hicks without the sanction of the Legis-
lature to appoint delegates from Maryland to represent
the state was strenuously denied by his political oppo-
nents/ and questioned by some of his closest* friends.'
Acting upon the advice of Reverdy Johnson,* Hicks
replied to Governor Letcher of Virginia accepting the
invitation to send delegates.' The following men repre-
sented Maryland: John T. Dent, Reverdy Johnson, John
W. Crisfield, Augustus C. Bradford, William T. Golds-
1)orough, J. Dixon Roman and Benjamin C. Howard."
The delegation was an able one and consisted of " strong
* Crittenden; Debates of Conference, Convention of 1861, p. 9.
' Baltimore Exchange, January 28, 1861, etc. Resolution of
mass-meeting in Baltimore City, February i, 1861.
* Letter to Hicks from E. H. Webster, January 23, 1861 (MS.).
' In seven states, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Mary-
land, North Carolina, Indiana and Kansas, commissioners were
appointed by the governors of the respective states.
* Letter from Hicks to R. Johnson, January 23, 1861 (MS.).
* Baltimore .\merican, January 29, 1861.
" Howard was added a little subsequently upon the suggestion of
R. Johnson. Letter of Johnson to Hicks (MS.).
38 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [543
Union " men, though not all were of the same political
party. On the fourth of February, i86i, the conference
met in Willard's Hall, in the city of Washington, and im-
mediately chose the venerable John Tyler as President.
Eventually twenty-one states were represented, including
all of the Southern states which had not passed ordinances
of secession and the free states except some of those of the
extreme northwest. The fourteen free states easily held
control, since the balloting was taken by states, each of
which had one vote.
The Peace Conference may be looked upon as the last
struggle of the compromisers. In the " Border States,"
especially, almost all factions seemed to have acted to-
gether, though for the last time, to make a gigantic strug-
gle for Union, The Conference contained many distin-
guished men, and from the conciliatory attitudes which
were assumed at first, strong hopes were entertained that
nuich good would result from the meeting." Maryland
was represented on the Committee on Resolutions by
Reverdy Johnson, who was probably the ablest scholar at
the bar in the state,"
As might be expected, the representatives from the
border slave states were the most active; but even in their
ranks, differences of such a radical nature appeared that
the chances of an agreement satisfactory to the majority,
in even a limited degree, seemed to become more and more
remote. The proceedings dragged along, and much time
was taken up by the members in making recriminations
and in attempts at fixing the responsibility for the unfor-
tunate plight of the country upon the various factions and
parties throughout the land. Of course it was understood
that the Peace Conference had no power to legislate for
" Chittenden, a member of the conference from Vermont, wrote
up the account of the proceedings from the notes which he took,
and is the chief authority on the subject.
" Crisfiold was on the Committee on Rules; Howard was tem-
porary .Secretary.
543] The Spirit of Compromise. 39
the country, but it was thought that the measures there
agreed upon would be considered by Congress as especially
weighty and worthy of adoption. Perhaps it may be added
as an additional motive for holding the convention the
partiality of the American people for employing conven-
tions instead of the customary regular legislative bodies
in the settlement of grave questions.
Hicks, as has been stated, had long formed plans of
consultation among the states, and now labored to secure
the success of the Conference. He paid a visit to the body
while in session and was received with much cordiality by
the members." Lincoln shortly before had sent for Hicks
to consult with him in regard to the Maryland appoint-
ments; and, in the interviews which took place, Hicks took
advantage of the opportunity to urge upon Lincoln that
the latter use his influence upon the Republican leaders to
secure a modification of their demands for the sake of
effecting a compromise."
Roughly speaking, public opinion in Maryland at this
time may be said to have been represented by the policy
pursued by the delegates from the state in the Peace Con-
ference. These with equal vehemence denounced both
secession and coercion. Crisfield, Johnson and Howard
even denied the right of secession, but declared as inalien-
able by an oppressed people, that of revolution. Maryland
also refused to admit that the Union was indivisible. To-
wards the end of the session, Reverdy Johnson introduced
a resolution which expressed regret at the action of those
states which advocated secession, yet did not pass judgment
upon the legality of their course or the nature of their
motives. Attempts at secession were " deprecated." "
The conference by a vote of nine to twelve refused to table
"Baltimore American, March 2. 1861.
" It was stated at the time that Lincoln offered Kicks a seat in
the cabinet which he declined. No satisfactory data on the sub-
ject have been found.
"Chittenden: Debates of Peace Conference, p. 449.
40 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Ck'il War. [544
resolutions which denied the right of secession. Ohio and
New Jersey voted with the slave states on four of the
motions." On l<\M3ruary 27 the Conference agreed upon
the Guthrie Report, which followed substantially the
Crittenden Compromise measure. Some of the provisions
of the report were adopted only by close votes. In the
main the chief opposition came from the most northerly
of the states, though Virginia, the promoter of the Con-
ference, almost steadily opposed the measures of compro-
mise which were adopted.
The bickering spirit which w^as so noticeable in the de-
bates, and the approaching inauguration of Lincoln, caused
public interest in the Conference to flag; and its resolutions
and the conclusion of the session passed largely unnoticed
by the people. Indeed, the widely discordant elements
present would have prevented the Conference from having
much weight, even if the times had been open to such
results." Meanwhile on February i a large mass-meet-
ing had been held at the Maryland Institute Building.
in which resolutions denouncing the course of Hicks in
appointing delegates to the Peace Conference as a " flag-
rant and unconstitutional usurpation of power " had been
adopted amid great applause. The resolutions also recom-
mended that the people of Baltimore should vote in
primaries on February 5 to select delegates for a conven-
tion which was to meet in the "Law Building" on February
7, which body was to choose representatives to a state con-
vention to be held on the i8th of the same month. The
counties were also recommended to hold primaries on Feb-
ruary 12, and county conventions on the 14th for the same
purpose.
This call for a convention was of course without any
authority. It had been adopted by tliose who were in
despair of prevailing upon Hicks either to summon the
Legislature, or to call a convention. The ground was
"Ibid., p. 447. " Nicolay and Hay: Lincoln, volume iii, 231-2.
545] TJic Spirit of Compromise. 41
taken that unconstitutional measures were the best that
could be adopted under the circumstances. Hopes had
been expressed by some of the speakers that the Union
might still be preserved, and the Peace Conference about
to assemble was looked upon as a means of accomplishing
this end. However, one speaker had gone so far as to
say that the Union was already a thing of the past, and
therefore it behooved the people of Maryland to make
arrangements for their position in the future. Throughout
the proceedings of the meeting Hicks had been denounced
on all sides. Henry May declared that the implied mean-
ing of the course of Hicks was that the people of Maryland
were not capable of being entrusted with a serious duty.
He added in a letter several days later: '* " His [Hicks']
conduct is that of an oppressor; and if the people of Mary-
land longer submit to it, they are, in my humble opinion,
only fit to be oppressed." S. T, Wallis was of the opinion
that the very reason that Hicks was unwilling to trust the
Legislature was suflficient reason why the people of Mary-
land should have confidence in that body.'* The course
of Hicks was said by him to have been filled with incon-
sistencies from beginning to end. Another speaker was of
the opinion that the most efifective and expeditious way of
ending the controversy was to gibbet Hicks.""
Considerable excitement occurred in the primary elec-
tions in the state. In a few cases the counties did not
make any selections for members of the convention.
Dorchester county, the home of Hicks, sent " Union "
delegates, but these were instructed to urge that redress
should be given to the South.
The State Conference Convention met on February i8,
the various parts of the state being on the whole represented.
Judge Ezekiel Chambers on taking the chair stated that he
had heard that Hicks was considering very favorably
"Letter of May to President of Baltimore Convention; Balti-
more Exchange, February 9, 1861.
" Baltimore Exchange, February 4, i86r.
■* Baltimore American, February 2, i86r.
42 Governor I licks of Maryland and the Civil War. [5-16
the proposition to summon a convention, and therefore
it was best to wait the action of a body legally chosen.
Therefore the Conference decided to adjourn until March
12, unless in the meantime Virginia should pass an ordi-
nance of secession ; in which case, Chambers was in-
structed to reconvene the Conference as soon as possible.
The evidence in the matter would seem to indicate that
Hicks was weakening in his stand that a session of the
Legislature, or a sovereign convention, was neither neces-
sary nor advisable. In a letter written on February 9,
he distinctly states that if Congress through the " Com-
mittee of Thirty-three " *' had not been considering plans
which aimed at the restoration of harmony and the
preservation of the Union, he, long before, would have
called a convention." The Conference Convention reas-
sembled on the day appointed, March 12. Stormy ses-
sions took place on that day and on the one following,
and little of importance was done. Resolutions of various
kinds were read, one set declaring that any attempt by the
United States Government to retake any forts seized by
the Confederacy would in itself be an entire dissolution of
the compact of the Constitution. In the end, compromise
measures prevailed, and the convention simply provided
for the sending of delegates to Virginia, and decided to
wait the action of that state in regard to secession. Pres-
ident Chambers was given the right to summon the Con-
vention whenever he should deem it advisable." The con-
vention was never reassembled. On the outbreak of hos-
tilities, Chambers issued a call for an assembling; but on
the appearance of the proclamation of Hicks calling a
special session of the Legislature, Chambers counter-
manded his previous order, declaring that the mission of
the Conference was ended."
" Henry Winter Davis represented Maryland on the " Committee
of Thirty-three." " Letter to Dr. Joseph J. Duvall (MS.).
" Rahimore Sun, March 13 and 14. 1861 ; Baltimore Exchange,
March 13 and 14, 1861; Ralfimorc American, March 13 and 14, 1861,
etc. " Baltimore Sun, April 25, 1861.
CHAPTER V.
RUMORS OF PLOTS AGAINST LINCOLN.
The belief existed in the minds of many persons that
violent measures would be taken to prevent the inaugura-
tion of Lincoln. As far back as January, 1861, Governor
Olden of New Jersey wrote to Hicks almost implor-
ing him not to yield to the demands of the " secession-
ists," and expressed his belief that it " is the opinion of
many that the peaceful inauguration of Mr. Lincoln de-
pends on the firmness of your excellency." ' A lady in-
formed Hicks that a Southern sympathizer had told her
that he knew of three thousand men in Maryland who
had sworn to prevent by force, if necessary, the inaugura-
tion of Lincoln." Hicks himself had stated in his procla-
mation of January 3, 1861: "But my fellow-citizens,
it is my duty to tell you that the reassembling of the legis-
lature is wished for by many who urge it with a view to
no such specification [acting as mediator between North
and South, etc.]. I have been repeatedly warned by per-
sons having the opportunity to know, and who are en-
titled to the highest confidence, that the secession leaders
in Washington have resolved that the border states, and
especially Maryland, shall be precipitated into secession
with the Cotton States before the 4th of March. They
have resolved to seize the Federal Capital and the public
archives, so that they may be in a position to be acknowl-
edged by foreign governments as the United States, and the
assent of IMaryland is necessary, as the District of Colum-
bia would revert to her in case of a dissolution of the
"■ Letter of Governor Olden to Hicks (MS.).
^ Mrs. Alma Phelps in a letter, January 14, 1861 (MS.).
44 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [548
Union. It is only contemplated to retain it for a few years;
as the wants of tlic southern military confederacy will
cause its removal further South. The plan contemplates
forcible opposition to Mr. Lincoln's inauguration, and
consequently civil war upon Maryland soil, and a trans-
fer of its horrors from the states which are to provoke it."
On January 25, Hicks wrote to General Scott asking
if two thousand arms could be had from the United States
government to "meet an emergency if it shall arise";
and then he proceeded to sjicak of the dangers which he
said were threatening Washington.*
As time went on Hicks became more and more con-
vinced that plots were in actual existence. A letter re-
ceived by him was deemed of such importance that it was
sent to the commanding officer at the Naval Academy;
though before this was done, he tore ofi the signature.
Marshal George Kane of the Baltimore Police saw the
letter and wrote to Hicks for the name of the corre-
spondent.* Hicks replied that he dare not give the
name since publicity would close up his means of obtain-
ing information in the future from that source." Kane
replied insisting that the head of the police and detective
departments was in a better position to ferret out the
alleged conspirators than was even the Governor himself.
I)Ut Hicks again refused to give the name of his correspon-
dent.'
No one seemed able to give definite information of any
plot, though the opinion was frequently exjiressed that
there must be some truth behind the rumors which were
current. Threats of violence were made l)y individuals.
and but little more was needed in the excited condition
of the public mind to create the impression that a well-
organized plot existed. Sensational articles continually
* Letter was not made public. It was found in Letter Book of
tlic Executive. * Ibid. » Ibid.
* Baltimore Exchange, February 25, 1861.
549] Rumors of Plots against Lincoln. 45
appeared in the newspapers, describing, at times with great
minuteness, plans to capture the capital, and to prevent
thereby the inauguration of Lincoln from taking place.
Scott took alarm and increased the number of soldiers
in Washington.
On January 26, the House of Representatives by a reso-
lution provided for a committee to investigate whether
" any secret organization hostile to the government of
the United States existed."' ' In a few days the committee
selected for the purpose began to examine witnesses. The
evidence which came in was very meagre and contradic-
tory. For instance it was shown that certain political
clubs such as the " National Volunteers " had begun to
drill and effect a military organization with the purpose
of preventing the "Wide awakes " from carrying out their
threats, as rumored, to escort Lincoln to Washington and
by force of arms to overawe the extreme sympathizers of
the Confederacy. However, it seems that no plans against
the capital were contemplated unless Maryland and Vir-
ginia should secede — and possibly not even then. Ex-
Governor Enoch Louis Lowe of Maryland in his testi-
mony denounced Hicks as being responsible for many of
the wild rumors then in circulation. Hicks was then re-
quested by the committee to appear whenever be should
find it convenient, and testify, in view of the fact that he
possessed, apparently, knowledge of a valuable character.
Hicks replied that his time was so taken up that he feared
that he could not comply with the request. The commit-
tee insisted, while Hicks protested that he could do noth-
ing more than to repeat what he had before given to the
public. If the committee saw proper, he asked that some
one should come to Annapolis to take his testimony. Fi-
nally on February 13, Hicks appeared in Washington
before the committee. The chairman expressed a desire
that Hicks would be as explicit as in his discretion seemed
' Report of Committees of Congress, 1860-1, volume ii.
46 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [550
suitable in view of his position as chief executive of a state.
His testimony however really added little to what was
already known, owing- to the lack of definiteness in his
statements, which he explained as necessary since publicity
would prevent further opportunities of acquiring informa-
tion. In closing, Hicks stated that though he had every
reason to believe that these plots once existed, he now
thought the danger had passed away. Hicks was very
bitterly criticised for his course in this matter. His oppo-
nents claimed that he had created an excitement unduly,
had made charges that he could not prove, and had thereby
caused reflections to be cast upon the good name of the
people of Maryland.'
Certainly from the evidence which he gave in, it seems
doubtful whether he was justified in expressing himself
so decidedly as he did in the proclamation of January
3, and on subsequent occasions; though he may have
believed that these reputed plots did exist. Probably the
actual facts in the matter will never be known. It seems
that Hicks was alarmed by schemes, which if they existed
at all, never passed out of the nebulous state, though much
wild talk was rife.
Nevertheless the press in some sections of the country
was still filled with lurid accounts of conspiracies existing
in Maryland, and in and around Washington. The plans
of the supposed conspirators continued to be delineated
with a surprising wealth of detail. Feeling was very
strong in opposition to the introduction into power of the
Republican party, but no satisfactory evidence has ever
been obtained to show that any designs were entertained
in Baltimore upon the life of Lincoln — at any rate by any
• " The mare's nest over which Governor Hicks had so long
brooflcd has proved to be an unprolific speculation. Notwith-
standing the proud cackle with which he announced its discovery,
and his patient incubation for many weeks, his labor has been
ahoRethcr barren of results." — Baltimore Exchange, February i6,
i86i.
551] Rumors of Plots against Lincoln. 47
organization having that purpose in view. The pubhc
appearance of Lincoln in Baltimore might have given an
occasion to an outbreak of mob violence, foreshadowing
in a way the terrible events of April 19, but it is need-
less to add that such an action would have been con-
demned by the bitterest opponents of Lincoln. It is true
Lincoln was disliked in Maryland as being the representa-
tive of the hated Republican party; but the feeling upper-
most toward him in the public mind in Maryland was
hardly to be distinguished from a form of contempt, which
had been brought on by what was considered the somewhat
trifling and undignified position which he had assumed
while slowly making his way to the East.
It was stated that Hicks had supplied the information
which had caused a change in the plans of the presidential
party, but this Hicks indignantly denied, and declared
his belief that no dangers whatever threatened Lincoln in
Baltimore.* The whole episode may be regarded as a
natural result of the prevailing excitement, and of the ease
and rapidity with which, in such times, the expression
of an opinion comes to be considered as a statement of
fact. A biography of Lincoln states that the latter " felt
that there was no evidence before him that the official
authority of the city would be exercised to restrain the
unruly elements which on such occasions densely pack the
streets of Baltimore." '" The question arises whether Lin-
coln was justified since he " had no evidence before him "
in assuming that the authorities of the city would not
endeavor to preserve order. In any well-organized form
of government, presumption is that the authorities will do
their obvious duty, unless proof to the contrary exists.
No such evidence was then available, nor has it been so
since then. The justification for Lincoln's course may
perhaps be seen in the fear that some fanatic might corn-
Baltimore American, February 27, 1861.
" Nicolay and Hay: Abraham Lincoln, volume iii, pp. 308-309.
48 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [552
mit an act of violence before the police could have pre-
vented this — but not on the g^rounds that the municipal
authorities would have been wilfully negligent in their
duties.
The month of March, 1861, has often been compared
to the moments of calm which come just before the storm.
The analogy is truly applicable to the condition in Mary-
land at that time; the records of the month sliowing little,
comparatively, of importance. To the people of the state,
the period was one of anxiety and gloomy forebodings.
The country appeared hopelessly rent asunder, leaving
Maryland in a Union to which she was bound by strong
bonds of reverence and affection, yet torn aloof from that
section of the country to which she was naturally attached
by the similarity of institutions. Advocates of peace found
little of comfort in Lincoln's silence and the preparations
for war busily going on in the Confederate States. Mass-
meetings continued to be held which either commended
Hicks, or roundly denounced him according to the opinions
of the constituents of the various gatherings. The lan-
guage employed was more pronounced in tone, and indi-
cated more intense feeling than hitherto, but this was offset
by the fact that there was even less of directness and
definiteness than tlicre had been in the plans previously
brought forward. As an instance of this, the State Con-
vention which assembled on March 12, for the second time,
ofTered no means of solution of the problem, nor did it
advocate any distinct policy, but simply decided to wait
the first positive movement in the political situation.
Hicks was in Washington on the first of the month,
where he had gone to urge the adoption of the resolu-
tions of the Peace Conference; and while there, had two
interviews with Lincoln. It was stated that the latter
sought his views as to the respective merits of Henry Win-
ter Davis and Montgomery Blair for a seat in the cabinet.
According to the reports, Hicks declared that Davis was
553] Rumors of Plots against Lincoln. 49
obnoxious to the people of Maryland, while the appoint-
ment of Blair would be regarded by them as a direct in-
sult." Hicks subsequently denied most strenuously that
he had recommended any one to Lincoln for appointment,
or that he would do so in the future unless his opinions
were sought for by the President; also that he was not, nor
would he ever be an applicant for office under the adminis-
tration."
On the question as to the advisability of calhng for an
expression of opinion by the people of the state in regard
to the future policy of Maryland, Hicks' views were un-
changed. He declared that the passage of the proposed
constitutional amendment by Congress had in a large mea-
sure stripped the problem of many of its perplexities, and
had shown the wisdom of Maryland's policy of inaction.
Hicks after having weakened, apparently, in his position
during February, had now come out more positively than
ever in opposition to all measures which in any way looked
towards disunion.
The last of the commissioners from the Southern States,
A. R. Wright of Georgia, who had visited Hicks to urge
upon him the necessity of Maryland's "withdrawal from
the Union " had met with much less encouragement.
Hicks now practically denied the right of secession. He
declared that the people of Maryland recognize the right
of revolution when tyranny becomes oppression, but
this was not the condition at the time. Moreover he
asserted that the American system of rotation in office
prevents tyranny from becoming firmly seated."
On the i8th of the month. Hicks took a much more ad-
vanced position towards the Federal Administration by
" Baltimore American, March 2, i86i.
'■ Letter from Hicks to William Price. Sec Baltimore American,
IMarcli 19, 1861.
" Apparently the reply to Wright was not given to the news-
papers nor to the public in any manner. It is to be found in the
Letter Book of the Executive.
38
50 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [554
applyinpf to General Scott for arms and soldiers if these
" should become necessary to put down rebellion in this
state," " Hicks feared that the passage of an act of seces-
sion by Virginia would cause an outbreak in Maryland.
Scott approved of the request, and Cameron notified Hicks
that assistance would be furnished him whenever he should
deem it necessary." The correspondence was not made
public at the time. Indeed, there is little doubt but that
there would have been a popular outcry if it had been
known that Hicks was seeking the services of United
States soldiers to keep order in Maryland.
" Letter Book of the Executive.
" War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, part i, p. 317-8.
CHAPTER VI.
OUTBREAK OF HOSTILITIES.
From this condition of lethargy, Maryland was suddenly
aroused by the attack on Fort Sumter. The call for sev-
enty-five thousand volunteers by Lincoln on April 15,
spread consternation in Maryland even among the
" Union " men. The cherished hope of neutrality in the
struggle, or at least of simple adherence to the Union,
was rendered impossible by the call upon Maryland for
four regiments of infantry. The state was expected not
only to remain in the United States, but also to assist in
the use of force to bring back the states adopting secession.
The position which Hicks, with some shifting, had held
was no longer tenable. Two courses were open to hirh —
both somewhat in conflict with his previous record —
either to advocate a breaking away from the Union on
the grounds that sufficient provocation was offered for
this by coercion; or to swallow his scruples in regard
to coercion, and to support the Federal administration.
Hicks had shortly before declared himself in favor of the
founding of an unconditional union party ;^ but when he
realized how seriously fraught with consequences such a
step would be in case of the outbreak of a war, he hesi-
tated. This hesitation was by no means peculiar to Hicks,
for throughout the country, and especially in the border
slave states, many of the most pronounced of the adher-
ents of the Union shrank back when called upon to advo-
cate coercion measures. Hicks' hesitation was of short
duration, comparatively, but while it lasted, stirring events
^ Letter of James U. Dennis to Hicks, March 28, 1861 (MS.).
52 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [556
took place, and Washing'ton trembled for its safety. This
uncertainty of purpose of Hicks preceding his closer at-
tachment to the Federal administration has given rise to
bitter criticisms.*
Excitement in Baltimore was growing so strong, that
on the day following the publication of Lincoln's call for
volunteers, a telegram was sent to Hicks urging him to
come to the city. He complied immediately, and on find-
ing the situation there very critical, went to Washington
where he had interviews with Lincoln, Scott and Cameron,
in which he represented to them the intense opposition of
the people of Maryland to any attempts to secure by force
the return of the seceded states. Hicks was assured posi-
tively that the volunteers desired from Maryland were not
to be taken out of the state except for the defense of the
District of Columbia; but after his return to Baltimore,
Hicks seemed to have had some misgivings as to the con-
clusions reached by his interviews in Washington, and
thereupon telegraphed to Lincoln for a definite statement
on the point. On the same day, April 17, Cameron
replied by two telegrams, assuring Hicks that the troops
from Maryland were only to be used for the defense of
" public property of the United States within the limits
of the State of Maryland," and " for the protection of the
Federal Capital."
Hicks then determined to make arrangements to fill the
quota of four regiments, and wrote to Cameron asking for
arms and accoutrements." He was on April 19, in the
act of signing the order for the calling out of the troops
when informed of the riots in the streets.* The next day,
'As an instance: "The conclusion is inevitable that he [Hicks]
kept himself in ccinipoise and fell at last as men without convic-
tions usually do, ujion the strongest side." — Jefferson Davis: Rise
and Fall of Confederate Government, volume i, p. 337-
'To lie found in Letter Book of the Executive; also in War of
Rebellion, series i. volume li, pp. 327-8.
* Procredinj^s of the Executive.
557] Outbreak of Hostilities. 53
Hicks notified Cameron that in view of the heated condi-
tion of the pubHc mind, and also since the " rebellious ele-
ment " was " in control of the arms and ammunition, he
thought it prudent to decline (for the present) responding
affirmatively to the requisition made by Lincoln for four
regiments ' of infantry." *
The excitement in Baltimore had already become so
great, that on April i8. Governor Hicks had issued a
proclamation, earnestly urging the people to abstain
from heated discussions, since such would easily provoke
violent outbreaks. A rash step might lead to consequences
fearful in nature. He assured the people that no troops
would pass through Maryland except those for the de-
fense of Washington; and that very shortly the people of
Maryland would have an opportunity in a special election
for members of Congress " to express their devotion to
the Union, or their desire to see it broken up." ^ Mayor
Brown supplemented this proclamation by a similar appeal
to the people to be orderly. On the same day Cameron
sent a dispatch to Hicks informing him of the threats to
prevent volunteers from the northern states from crossing
' Except where specific references have been made, the corres-
pondence quoted above is to be found in Document A of the House
and Senate Documents, 1861.
* Lincoln had assigned Frederick and Baltimore as mustering
stations. On April 20, Lieut. Macfeely, the officer assigned
to Frederick, apprised Hicks of his arrival and asked for instruc-
tions. The reply came:
" Your letter of the 20th was received this morning. I am
directed by the Governor to inform you that no troops have been
called out in Maryland, and that consequently your mission is at
an end, and you will therefore report to the Secretary of War, who
has been informed of the Governor's views in this matter."
Your obedient servant,
George Jefferson,
Private Secretary to Gov. Hicks.
' Baltimore Sun, April 19, 1861 ; Baltimore Exchange, April 19,
1861 ; Baltimore American, April 19, 1861.
A few days before, Hicks, in response to a serenading party,
had taken occasion to express again his hopes that the Union
would be preserved. — Baltimore Sun, April 17, 1861.
54 Gozrntor Hides of MorylamI and the Civil War. [558
Maryland to reach Washington, and statins:: that Lincohi
desired the " loyal authorities and citizens to prevent or
overcome any forcible opposition to the troops passing-
through to Washington." * The events of "April 19th "
have been treated of by many writers, therefore no at-
tempt will here be made to discuss any but special phases
of the subject.*
The opinion is now generally accepted that the city
authorities did all in their power to protect the Sixth Mas-
sachusetts from the attacks of the mobs. Mayor Brown
himself gave an illustration of remarkable personal courage
by marching at the head of the soldiers. The fact is worth
bearing in mind that the mobs by no means consisted of
the rough elements alone. Many prominent and respect-
able persons were to be found in their ranks, seeking to
repel what they considered an invasion of Maryland.
The meeting which took place in Monument Square on
that afternoon was dramatic in a high degree. The flag
of Maryland was hoisted. S. Teackle Wallis and other
speakers in vehement terms denounced the action of the
Federal administration. Mayor Brown was more temper-
ate in his remarks, denying the right of secession, but
condemning coercion. Hicks was called for. Wethered
and Lowe were appointed a committee to escort him from
the hotel where he was stopping; and in a few moments
returned with the object of their quest. The crowd
swayed for a moment or so and then became quiet, omin-
ously so. Mayor Brown assured the people that Hicks
agreed entirely with him that no more troops intended to
be used against the South, should be allowed to pass
through the state. The flag of Maryland was placed by the
side of her chief executive. Hicks' remarks were but few
in number. He declared that Brown had not misrep-
• House and Senate Documents of i86r, Document A.
• On the whole, the best account is by Mayor George W. Brown
in his " Baltimore and the 19th of April." Studies in Historical
and Political Science, J. H. U. extra volume iii.
559] Outbreak of Hostilities. 55
resented him, but that he desired to see the Union
preserved. An angry cry broke from the crowd. Then
Hicks plainly announced his position thus: " I bow
in submission to the people. I am a Marylander; I love
my state and I love the Union, but I will suffer my right
arm to be torn from my body before I will raise it to
strike a sister state." "
It is not necessary to believe those accounts of the inci-
dent which state that Hicks appeared " sheepish " in his
manner, or that he had a " hang dog expression " upon his
face; yet the fact undoubtedly remains that he was badly
frightened — and this is by no means remarkable. Hicks
by his refusal to call the Legislature had incurred the
violent animosity of a considerable number of the people
of the state. His policy of " masterly inactivity " was be-
lieved by those persons to have bound Maryland until
she was now helpless. Threats upon his life had not been
uncommon during the preceding five months. The events
of the day had intensified this hatred to fever heat. As
Hicks looked around upon the angry faces turned towards
him, he must have felt that if he dared to express himself
in any way in opposition to the one will and purpose which
dominated the crowd, the entire police force of the city
present could not prevent his life from being taken.
Hicks immediately issued orders for the calling out of
the local military companies. A dispatch was sent by him
and Mayor Brown to Lincoln stating that a collision had
taken place " between the citizens and the northern
troops," but that the state militia was competent to " pre-
serve peace"; therefore, "send no more troops here.""
About midnight a committee was sent to Washington
bearing a letter from Hicks and Mayor Brown which de-
scribed more in detail the disorders of the day.
" The language employed by Hicks, and the details of the affair
are variously stated, yet no material differences in these accounts
exist.
" Baltimore Sun, April 22, 1861.
56 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [560
On the night of the 19th, a memorable meeting- was held
in the house of Mayor Brown where Hicks was staying.
Subsequently a bitter controversy arose as to what really
took place there. Hicks was feeling so unwell that he was
obliged to hold the conference in his bed-room. The
action of the Federal administration in using Maryland
as a passway for troops to be employed against the seceded
states was vehemently denounced, and the opinion was
generally shared that similar occurrences must be pre-
vented in the future if possible. Little hope was enter-
tained of prevailing upon Lincoln at the time, if at all,
to accede to the public demand in Maryland. It was then
decided that prompt measures were necessary to keep
soldiers of the United States Government from crossing
the state. As the most efficient means of accomplishing
this end, the burning of the bridges at the railroads con-
necting Baltimore with the North was settled upon, and the
consent of Hicks asked. The latter agreed that troops
should not cross the state, but spoke of the seriousness
of the question of burning the bridges, and pleaded lack
of authority on his part to give consent thereto.
What followed then is not entirely beyond dispute.
Mayor Brown, his brother, Cummings Brown, Ex-Gov-
ernor Enoch Louis Lowe, and Marshal Kane state that
Hicks seemed to be persuaded by the arguments brought
to bear upon him, and signified that he would offer no
objection to the proposed undertaking. But the reply
came that his express order was necessary, since Mayt)r
Brown's jurisdiction did not extend beyond the city. Then,
it is claimed, Hicks definitely gave the order for the burn-
ing of the bridges." On May 4, Hicks sent a message to
the Senate of Maryland in response to a request " from
that body for information on the point. In this he denied
that he gave his consent to the destruction of the bridges."
" House Documents of 1861, Document G.
"Journal of Senate of 1861, p. Z3. '* Ibiil.. p. 64.
561] Outbreak of Hostilities. 57
This was soon followed by an "Address to the people of
Maryland " in which he took the same stand." Hicks
admitted that he was excited but that he went no further
than to say " that the Mayor could do as he pleased —
that I had no power to interfere with his design; if this
be consent to the destruction of the bridges, then I con-
sented." " He made the point that the bridges on the
Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore and the Northern
Central Railroads were set on fire within one hour after
the so-called consent was given.
In view of the intense excitement which was prevailing,
it is not surprising that the records of that time which
come down are often contradictory. However, it is known
that a number of bodies of men, some sent by the authori-
ties of the city, and others acting upon their own respon-
sibility left Baltimore for the purpose of destroying the
bridges in question. For the purposes of this paper, it is
not necessary to know where the men who destroyed the
bridges received their orders, but rather whether Hicks
gave his consent thereto. In regard to the meeting
which took place at Mayor Brown's house, it should be
borne in mind that all the persons present were very much
excited, and that nothing was put in writing at that time.
Hicks was strongly opposed to the passage of troops
through Maryland, and moreover was completely ex-
hausted from the strain he had been under during the day.
Possibly he expressed himself more strongly than he in-
tended; and then, besides, words spoken at such times of
excitement are frequently misconstrued. However, there
can be little doubt but that Hicks gave that night some
form of authorization for the burning of the bridges.
"Moore's Rebellion Record, volume ii, p. i8i; Sun, May i6,
1861.
"* " I do not deny that the proposed act, unlawful though it was,
seemed to be the very means of averting bloodshed. But it would
have little become me as Governor of the State to consent to an
infraction of the laws which I had sworn to enforce."
58 Goi'crnor Ilicks of I^fa>■yla)ld and the Civil War. [562
The point has been dwelt upon because it possesses more
sij::^nificance than at first may seem apparent. By this act,
Ilicks for the moment alHed himself with the opponents
of the United States Government and dealt a blow at the
safety of its capital. As Senator Sherman has said, by the
destruction of the bridges, the safety of Washington was
seriously jeopardized."
The point also derives importance from the fact that in
a very short time Hicks denounced all measures hostile
to the United States Government as those of rebellion.
This short defection was overlooked, and Hicks was soon
on cordial terms with the administration. In those days
of rapidly shifting issues and as rapidly changing views
upon these, it was not always deemed advisable to ques-
tion the past orthodoxy of even the most zealous. More-
over, in justice to Hicks, it should be remembered that he
accepted the doctrine of the coercion of the states adopt-
ing secession, as did many of the prominent persons of the
times, and indeed even some of those who stood high in
the Federal administration, only after considerable hesi-
tation and after more or less vigorous attempts to protest
against it.
The following day Lincoln sent word to Hicks that he
desired to consult with him and Mayor Brown immedi-
ately. Hicks had in the meantime returned to Annapolis,
and on receiving the message, telegraphed to Mayor
Brown: " My going depends upon you." An understand-
ing was not efTected between the two, and thereupon
Mayor Brown, accompanied by several prominent citizens
of Baltimore, had an interview with Lincoln in which they
set forward the danger to be incurred in attempting again
to pass troops through Baltimore. A promise was ex-
tracted that if possible the troops would march around the
city.
On the same day, United States Senator Anthony Kcn-
" Correspondence between Shennnn and S. Tearklc Wallis.
563] Outbreak of Hostilities. 59
nedy, and J. Morrison Harris, acting entirely indepen-
dently of the party of Mayor Brown, had interviews with
Lincoln, Seward, Scott and Cameron. At first an endeavor
was made to prevent any troops from passing through any
portion of Maryland, but this the administration positively
refused to consent to, showing that Maryland afforded the
only means by rail by which Washington could be ap-
proached, directly, from the North. As the plan least liable
then to provoke bloodshed, Kennedy and Harris suggested
that the line of transit be as follows: from the mouth of
the Susquehanna River to Annapolis by water, and from
thence to Washington. Cameron feared that railroad fa-
cilities could not be obtained to cover the latter part of the
route, but to meet this objection, Kennedy and Harris se-
cured the promise of President Garrett of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad to furnish transportation. A telegram
was then sent to Mayor Brown by Kennedy and Harris
which stated positively that troops would not pass through
or around Baltimore.^* In virtue of the agreement reached
in Washington, Kennedy and Harris on reaching Balti-
more, with the approbation of the Police Board of Balti-
more City went to the camp of volunteers from Pennsyl-
vania at Cockeysville, and persuaded the commandant to
withdraw beyond the northern boundaries of the state."
Meanwhile events in another portion of the state were
attracting attention. General Benjamin Butler arrived in
Philadelphia on April 20, with a detachment of volun-
teers from Massachusetts. Finding the direct route to
" Baltimore Republican, April 22, 1861.
^° Full account of the trip to Washington, etc., is given in a paper
read by J. Morrison Harris before the Maryland Historical Society,
March 9, 1891. See Publications of the above, 28-31.
It seems probable that the administration had realized by this
time the impossibility of carrying troops by way of Baltimore, not
only because of the opposition prevailing in the city, but also be-
cause the railroad bridges were destroyed, and had already given
orders for the change in route. See article by Adolph Von Rcuth
in Washington Star, March 12, 1891.
GO Goz'crnor Hicks of Maryland and ih^ Civil War. [564
Washington closed, he went by rail to Perryville at head
of Chesapeake Bay, and proceeded thence to Annapolis by
water. Butler had planned to take Annapolis by storm,
but much to his surprise, found but little opposition from
the local authorities."
The prospect of armed forces in the capital of the state
alarmed Hicks. He immediately sejit a dispatch to Butler,
strongly protesting- against the landing of troops at Anna-
polis. Butler replied that circumstances demanded that he
should disembark at Annapolis, and that he only desired to
pass peacefully to Washington. He also took advantage
of the opportunity to reproach Hicks for the use of the
term " Northern troops " — " they are," wrote Butler, " a
part of the militia of the United States obeying the call of
the President." Indeed, the situation seemed to Hicks to
be one of extreme gravity. According to rumor, com-
panies were organizing in Baltimore to come to Annapolis
and to prevent by force the threatened disembarcation.
Hicks telegraphed to Mayor Brown urging him to prevent
any such movement from taking place, also stating posi-
tively that the troops would not land at Annapolis. Mean-
while Hicks was continually urging Lincoln not to provoke
bloodshed by attempting to force a way through Maryland.
The Federal administration insisted, however, that the
troops must land at Annapolis.
Though Butler had written courteously to Hicks for per-
mission to make a landing at Annapolis, yet from the
tenor of his letter it is apparent that he desired rather to
make a statement of his intentions than to formulate a
request. He looked upon Maryland, in view of the events
of the " 19th," as hostile territory, which required prompt
and severe measures to subdue. An interview between
Butler and Hicks resulted in no agreement between the
two; in fact, it is not probable that Butler was at liberty
to make material changes in his plans.
*Parton: General Butler in New Orleans.
565] Outbreak of Hostilities. 61
Seward wrote Hicks that passage to Washington through
Maryland had to be effected, and that the route by way of
AnnapoHs had been agreed upon by prominent citizens of
Maryland as the one least open to objections. Hicks realized
that further opposition was useless, but still condemned the
policy of the administration as most unwise/^ The course
followed by Hicks was adversely commented upon by
many citizens of the state. They contended that Mary-
land had been humiliated by the action of her chief execu-
tive, who, after practically forbidding the landing of the
troops, had then tamely given in. Instead, it was claimed,
the Governor should have called out the state militia to
have enforced his stand." Such an act Hicks could hardly
have considered seriously for a moment. In the first
place, it is extremely improbable that he was willing to use
armed force against the United States Government. At
any rate, the disasters sure to attend such a step must
have been very apparent to him. The state militia was in
no condition to be mustered in, and most certainly not to
be used to oppose the United States Government.'^
" The relations between Butler and Hicks at this time may be
found from consideration of: Official Records of the Rebellion;
House and Senate Documents of Maryland Legislature, 1861, Docu-
ment A; Letter Book of the Executive; Proceedings of the Execu-
tive; Daily newspapers; Private correspondence of Hicks, etc.
^ Baltimore Sun, April 30, 1861.
^ Several weeks later. Hicks did intimate in a letter to Butler
that he would use the forces of the state to compel the withdrawal
of free negroes from the company of Butler, if the latter, himself,
did not take steps to do so. However, nothing came of it.
CHAPTER VII.
CALLING OF THE LEGISLATURE.
The Monday following the " 19th," Hicks spent alone in
his room. To him it was indeed a day of perplexity and
of doubt. Whatever may have been his misgivings as to
what should be his relations with the United States Gov-
ernment, he felt convinced that it was not advisable to
resist any longer the demand for the convening of the
Legislature.
In his message to a subsequent Legislature upon its
assembling on December 4, of the same year, Hicks gave
his reasons for having changed his mind in regard to the
necessity of legislation by the state. He said that when
" Coleman Yellott, Esq., late Senator from Baltimore City,
after advising with the Board of Police Commissioners,
and instigated by the more prominent of the conspirators,
unlawfully issued his ' Proclamation ' * for an assembling
of the Legislature at Baltimore, where a portion of the
secession element was congregated, I knew it was time for
me to act." Further on, he stated that he made an effort
to call out the state militia, but on finding that very many
of the officers were " in league with the conspirators," he
decided that the militia would do more harm than good.'
The fact is undoubtedly true that, if Hicks had not sum-
moned the Legislature at that time, the people in some
unconstitutional way would have taken the matter in their
' Ycllott's " Proclamation " has not been found. However he
certainly went so far as to prepare a letter to his fellow-members
of the Legislature asking them to meet in Baltimore t<) consult
together.
' House Documents, 1861-2, Document A.
567] Calling of the Legislature. 63
own hands. A journal of Baltimore City expresses the
situation quite conservatively thus: "That Governor
Hicks' refusal to yield will encourage a spontaneous dem-
onstration of the people towards some other form of
organized authority . . . make necessary those revolutionary
proceedings which it is best to avoid." ^ On April 22, Hicks,
in view of the " extraordinary condition of affairs," issued
a summons for the assembling of the Legislature at
Annapolis on April 26.*
The summoning of the Legislature by Hicks, after he
had so long refused to do so, has often been considered
as a weakening on his part. In some respects it was, since
thereby he placed in power a body which he had so often
declared to be unfitted to act in the existing crisis. Like-
wise it was a step which in a measure arrayed him against
the Federal Government, since he had stated his belief
that the Legislature if convened would lend active support
to the secession movement in the Southern states. How-
ever, there are other points to be considered. Hicks'
refusal to call the Legislature was a constant menace to his
life. Irrespective of this point, he recognized clearly that
he was no longer in a position to control, or even to direct
the policy of Maryland. If he had resisted any longer, his
grasp would have been gone forever; therefore, in accord-
ance with his principles, he deemed it best to bend a little
to the storm. He had always declared that the people did
not want the Legislature convened; now there could be no
mistake that a demand for this body existed. Moreover,
he was strongly opposed to Maryland being used in any
way as an instrument for coercing the seceded states.
The call for the Legislature was issued on the 22d, there-
by allowing only four days before the time appointed for
the convening of that body. Strenuous efforts were made
to bring the members to Annapolis; thus a steamer was
* Baltimore Sun, April 22, 1861.
* Proceedings of the Executive.
64 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [568
chartered by Coleman Yellott, with the approval of Hicks,"
and was sent to the Eastern Shore to notify the members
there, and to bring back as many as possible.
On the last day of the previous session of the House of
Delegates the seats of the members of that body from
I'.altiinorc City were declared vacant on the grounds of
frauds in the election. On the same day that the summons
of the Legislature appeared, Sheriff Dutton, of Baltimore,
issued a writ for a special election on April 24, to fill the
vacancies,'
The " States Rights and Southern Rights Convention,"
which had met on April 18, again assembled on the
night of April 22, and nominated John C. Brune, Charles
H. Pitts, William G. Harrison, Hanson Thomas, S.
Teackle Wallis, Ross Winans, H. M. Morfit and Law-
rence Langston for the Legislature. The election on the
24th passed off without marked disturbances. There was
no opposition to the candidates named above, though only
9244 votes were cast as against 30,148 in the previous
election. Senator Sherman, of Ohio, among others,
claimed that the police authorities had prevented opposi-
tion votes from being cast.' This was strongly denied.
I^ndoubtedly public feeling ran very high in the city on
that day and prevented any opposition from materializing.
Yet the smallness of the vote can best be accounted for,
it would seem, by the fact that when only one ticket is in
the field, a small vote usually results.
The legality of this election was questioned, since,
according to the law, ten days should elapse 1)ct\voen the
issuance of the notice by the sheriff and the time appointed
for the election in all cases where vacancies were to be
filled." However, the men voted for on the 24th took
* Message of Hicks to House of Delegates, May 4, 1861.
* Speaker Kilhouni liad sent the writ for a new election on May
TO, i860, but Sheriff Dutton did not issue same until nearly a
year later, on April 22, 1861.
' Correspondence between Sherman and S. Teackle Wallis.
* Constitution of 1851, Article III, Section 29.
569] Calling of the Legislature. 65
their seats in the House of Delegates without a protest.
Later in the session a motion was proposed which declared
that the election was void, but the House refused to take
this view of the matter.'
At a meeting which had taken place between Hicks, the
Mayor of Annapohs and General Butler, the latter had
been informed that his landing at Annapolis would be use-
less, since the rails of the Annapolis and Elkridge Railroad
were about to be taken up, the road being private property.
Butler was by no means daunted by this statement, but
proceeded to take possession of the road, stating shortly
afterwards that he could not understand why members of
the Legislature should be allowed to pass in one direction
over the road, while the soldiers of the United States
could not pass in the opposite direction. Hicks on iiear-
ing of this step sent a protest to Butler, " because, without
assigning any other reason, I am informed that such occu-
pation of said road will prevent the members of the Legis-
lature from reaching this city." In subsequent communi-
cations Butler offered to cooperate with Hicks in the
" suppression of any insurrection against the laws of Mary-
land," and especially to assist in keeping down the negroes
should the threatened uprising of the members of this
race take place. Governor Hicks promptly and somewhat
coldly declined the ofifer of assistance.'"
• Fiery of Washington County proposed the motion. The com-
mittee reported that the question was a trivial one, since only four
days intervened between the publication of Hicks' proclamation and
the convening of the Legislature. Moreover Sheriff Button had
held for nearly a year the writ providing for a new election; and
hence his negligence was the cause of the failure of the city to
select delegates. Such action on his part should not be suffi-
cient to make the city suffer for lack of representation. The de-
bates which occurred over this motion were very spirited. One of
the delegates, to the amusement of his fellow-members, proved to
Fiery conclusively that according to the strict letter of the law his
(Fiery's) election was void. Baltimore American, May 13, 1861.
" Governor Andrews of Massachusetts upon being apprised of
this proffer of assistance, wrote to Butler censuring him for offering
39
66 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Ciz'il War. [570
Meanwhile the situation in Maryland was anxiously
watched. In view of tlie location of Washington, the in-
fluence of the state bid fair to be of especial importance
in whichever way she should cast her lot. The press of
the state, holding widely different views as to the solution
of the political problems, strove laboriously to prove that
whatever had happened, and whatever might be the status
of the seceded states, war was unnecessary. One paper
attempted to show that a conflict over the possession of
Washington was useless even if " Maryland remains with
the North," because in a short while the Federal Govern-
ment will change its seat of its own accord, since surely
it would not care to have " its capital in gunshot of a
foreign land." "
The plans suggested for restoring peace were at times
unique. One of the closest of the political friends " of
Hicks wrote to him suggesting that troops from Maryland
and Virginia go to Washington and protect Lincoln and
his cabinet, while Governor Letcher, of Virginia, and Hicks
should hurry to Harrisburg as hostages of the good faith
of the armies and governments of their respective states.
From the remarks which Hicks made from time to time,
it is hardly probable that he was willing to stand security
for the Maryland authorities, and for the many excited men
in the state militia.
The week following upon April 19 was one of in-
tense excitement. Pro-southern sentiment showed itself in
mass-meetings and in the organization of military com-
panies throughout the state. Marshal Kane, after en-
deavoring to protect the Massachusetts soldiers on the
assistance to a " community in arms against the Federal Union."
The soldiers under Butler had not been formally mustered into
the service of the United States, and were therefore nominally
under the commander-in-chiefship of Governor Andrew. Parton:
General Butler in New Orleans, 94-98.
" Baltimore Sun, April 22, 1861.
"William T. Goldsborough of Dorchester County. Maryland.
Letter to Hicks, April 24, 1861 (MS.).
571] Calling of the Legislature. 67
19th, on the next day plainly announced his intention to
do his utmost to prevent Maryland from being used as a
highway for troops going to Washington or to the South."
The City Council of Baltimore appropriated $500,000 for
the defense of the city, and some of the counties took simi-
lar steps. It was ordered that no flags should be displayed,
nor should any provisions leave the city. Mayor Brown
asked for loans of arms and ammunition. Military com-
panies were rapidly organized and drilled, and arms were
received from Virginia. It was believed that untiring
efforts were necessary to put the city in a state of defense
against the " hordes " which were hourly expected from
the Northern states. The riots of the preceding Friday
had aroused throughout the North a strong desire for
retaliation upon Baltimore. The following newspaper
clipping illustrates some of the plans which were urged
for the capture of the city. The assaulting party should
pass " over roofs, through breaches in the walls, by doors
or windows by sappers and miners with crowbars, with
sledge hammers, with picks, with gunpowder in small bags,
armed with hand grenades, revolvers and cutlasses, or
such other weapons as shall be best adapted to a storming
party and a hand-to-hand conflict." " The fact is worthy
of note that comparatively little was said of the secession
of Maryland during this excitement. For the time being
this question was regarded as subordinated to that of
resistance to the attempt to draw Maryland into coopera-
tion with the movement against the Confederacy. Though
the Union was believed to be divided irredeemably, yet
there was a marked hesitation, except on the part of a
very small minority, to urge instant secession, though
perhaps the larger number of people in the state believed
that of the two divisions, which seemed inevitable, Mary-
land would in time go with the Southern. Whatever
" Kane's telegram to Bradley T. Johnson. Frequently quoted.
" New York Tribune. See Baltimore Sun, May 2, 1861.
G8 Gorcnwr Hicks of Maryland and the Chil JVar. [573
differences of opinion existed among the people of the
state, on one point they were practically united, and that
was in opposition to the aims and principles of the Repub-
lican party. Lincoln since his election and inauguration
had done little to overcome this objection; and indeed the
apparently trivial manner with which he treated the ques-
tion confronting him aroused in Maryland little confidence
in his ability to cope with the problems of the situation.
As an instance, on April 22, a delegation from the local
Young Men's Christian Associations in Baltimore called
upon Lincoln and urged him to prevent further passing of
troops over Maryland. He replied: "I must have the
troops, and mathematically the necessity exists that they
should come through Maryland. They cannot crawl under
the earth and they can't fly over it, and mathematically they
must come over it. Why, sir, those Carolinians are now
crossing Virginia to come here and hang me, and what
am I to do? " " Upon the entreaty of the delegates that he
give his consent to a peaceful separation of the seceded
states, Lincoln declared that " there would be no Washing-
ton in that, no Jackson in that, no spunk in that," and
further expressed his determination to " run the machine
as he found it." After leaving, one of the committee ex-
claimed: " God have mercy upon us when the Government
is put into hands of a man like this "" — an expression of a
sentiment which found its echo in the hearts of even the
most pronounced adherents of the Union in Maryland.
The real Lincoln was yet to be disclosed.
On April 24, Hicks issued a proclamation changing
the place of the meeting of the Legislature from Annapolis
to Frederick." The reason assigned was that " in view of
" The 1anRuag:e is quoted differently by various writers. The
incident is generally mentioned by biographers of Lincoln; it was
published in the newspapers at the time.
"Baltimore Sun, April 23. 1861.
" General Benjamin Howard among others urged the step upon
Hicks. See letter of Howard to Hicks, April 24, 1861 (MS), Jour-
nal of Senate, 1861, p. 4.
573] Calling of the Legislature. 69
the extraordinary condition of affairs," the change in
location was desirable to secure the " safety and comfort
of the members." " A number of months later, Hicks de-
clared that he had given the order to meet in Frederick
because of the well-known strength of the Union senti-
ment of that town/' Hicks was undoubtedly influenced
by both motives. He desired to see the seat of the
Legislature located in a strong Union locality; furthermore
he dreaded the results of a close contact of General Butler
with the members of the Legislature, many of whom were
known to be bitterly disposed towards the Federal admin-
istration and its representatives.
During the night of April 26, Hicks went to Balti-
more from Annapolis by water, and from there hastened
to Frederick."" Here his position was by no means without
its perils. The ultra-Southern party had not forgiven him
for his course in preventing Maryland from taking some
action earlier through her Legislature. Threats and plots
upon his life, which had not been infrequent during the
past, continued to be a source of danger to him. James
R. Partridge, the Secretary of State, deemed the risks too
great and resigned his position." Among the more con-
servative class of sympathizers with the movement in the
Southern states, there were many who gladly welcomed
Hicks, as they supposed, into their ranks, though con-
siderable was said about an " Eleventh Hour man."
During the previous session of the Legislature, which
consisted practically of the same members " that were now
to meet in special session, considerable friction had oc-
" Baltimore Sun, April 25, 1861.
" Message of Hicks to Legislature, on December 4, i86r. House
Documents, 1861-2, Document A.
*" Baltimore Republican, April 26, 1861.
" Proceedings of the Executive. Subsequently Grayson Eichel-
berger of Frederick was appointed Secretary of State and his selec-
tion was confirmed by the Senate.
" Excepting members of the House of Delegates from Baltimore
City, and one member from Washington County.
70 Gozrnwr Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [57-i
currcd between that body and Hicks. Subsequently Hicks
had not hesitated to speak disparagingly of the status of
the Assembly, but now on the main question of the day, no
appreciable difference was apparent. Hicks by his re-
marks in Monument Square on April 19 had declared him-
self entirely out of sympathy with the policy of Lincoln.
Since that day he had been, on the whole, reticent; but
the very fact that he had summoned the Legislature, and
that he had changed the place of its assembling, implying
that he desired the members of the Legislature to be
freed from the influence and control of the United States
soldiers in Annapolis — these facts strengthened the im-
pression that Hicks was in heart and soul with the friends
of the South.
CHAPTER VIII.
ASSEMBLING OF THE LEGISLATURE.
The Legislature met in the Court House, in Frederick,
at I P. M., on Friday, April 26, but after a few days held
its sessions in the German Reformed Building, corner of
Church and Market streets. Seventeen of the twenty-one
Senators, and a large number of the members of the House
of Delegates answered to the first roll-call, showing the
success of the strenuous efforts to secure the presence of
a quorum on four days' notice. Some of those present
had left their homes with only a moment's warning, and
had hastened to use their efforts to ward of¥ the adoption
of measures which would tend to carry Maryland into
secession; others had directly contrary aims in view, but
all were alive to the fact that the incoming session of the
Legislature would be the most critical in the history of
the state. A rash step meant untold suffering, and, in
truth, the fortunes and lives of the citizens of Maryland
were at stake.
The message of Hicks to the Legislature was awaited
with great interest. If he should in vehement language
denounce the policy of Lincoln, and urge cooperation
with the seceded states, little doubt was felt by many
that in the excitement of the moment the state would be
swept into secession. The Governor's message showed
that he realized the gravity of the situation. The events
which had recently taken place were narrated, and a further
appeal for calmness was added. The scenes of bloodshed
in Baltimore on April 19 were described as the work
of an " irresponsible mob." * He did not consider the
* In opening message to Legislature on December 4, 1861, Hicks
spoke of the occurrence as a " treasonable outbreak."
72 Gozrnior Hicks of MaryhDul and the Civil War. [576
question of secession, spoke of the possibility in the future
of Maryland's " taking sides against the Federal Govern-
ment," bnt advised against any such action at present. It
is not clear whether he refers to an attempt at rebellion, or
whether he believed the state had a constitutional right
to sever its connection with the United States Government.
Indeed, there seems to have been a confusion in his own
mind. Hicks was possessed with the idea which was so
prevalent in the border slave states, that is, that a state
could remain in the Union, yet refuse to take any part in
the war; could be in the Federal Union, yet not render
assistance to it. Consequently it is not surprising that
Hicks should have suggested to Lincoln that Lord Lyons,
the English ambassador to this country, be requested to
act as " mediator between the contending factions." *
The message of Hicks," as a whole, is singularly non-
committal. He had deemed that the occasion demanded
the action of the Legislature; yet he recommended really
no policy to it on its convening, except the negative plan
of passive adherence to the Union and of neutrality. The
truth of the matter is that Hicks could not well do other-
wise. He was not willing to urge an alliance with the
Southern states, nor did he dare to inflame public senti-
ment still higher by advocating the rendering of assistance
to the Federal administration, even if he approved of
such a course. He thought Maryland would be the prob-
able seat of bloody war; from such a calamity he expressed
hi? desires to see the state preserved.
I licks by his course during the preceding six months
had won strong expressions of approval from the Northern
press. But now the people in the North believed that,
* Seward in roply scorned the suggestion to call in a foreign
power, and took the opportunity to chide Hicks for Maryland's
apparent indifference to the Union when in its greatest peril.
House Documents of 1861, Document A.
' Hicks' message is found in the House Documents of 1861.
Doc. A.
577] Assemblhig of the Legislature. 73
after having proved a formidable bulwark to the attacks of
the secessionists in Maryland and the South in general,
he had at last succumbed and was now leagued with those
who were endeavoring to break up the Union. Some of
the journals were very severe in their criticism of him and
did not hesitate to call his conduct treasonable.*
The Democrats controlled the Senate by a single vote
and the House of Delegates by a larger majority. Possibly
it may be said that, in the main, the most radical element of
the Southern sympathizers in the Legislature found its
nucleus in the Democratic party, but in the exciting and
troublous scenes which were enacted during the sessions of
this Legislature, it is impossible to group the actors satis-
factorily on the lines of past party affiliations. For instance,
H. H. Goldsborough, Senator of Talbot county, was a
Democrat, yet he was a leader of the very small minority
which may be called the extreme Union party. Coleman
Yellott, an open secessionist and father of the ill-fated
" Safety Bill," had been elected as a Know Nothing. The
Senate, on the day after assembling, adopted unanimously
resolutions styled an " Address to the People of Mary-
land." These stated that the Legislature did not have the
right to pass an act of secession, though the promise was
held out that a sovereign convention would be called if
the demand for such seemed clearly evident."
* Philadelphia Ledger, April 25: " Whatever the motives claimed
for Governor Hicks may be his acts show that he is either playing
into the hands of the secessionists or else weak in a situation where
to be weak is to be wicked. By his proclamation that no more
troops should pass through Maryland under the pretext of the
Border states remaining neutral, he has given countenance to the
revolutionists who are endeavoring to cut off all communication
with the seat of government. He should have suffered himself to
be held as a prisoner of war; he should have called on the Wash-
ington government for aid, but he should have died a martyr rather
than have put his hands to any such declaration. His proclamation
is a violation of his oath to support the Constitution of the United
States His proclamation is an act of treason."
' Senate Journal, April 27, 1861, p. 8.
74' Goi'crnor Hicks of Maryland and the Cii'il JVar. [578
Such was the haste with which these resokitions were
hurried through, that the Senate had put itself on record
before the message customarily sent to that body by the
Governor, upon its convening, had been received. These
resolutions were then sent to the House of Delegates,
which took action the same day, though not through con-
currence or disagreement with the resolutions of the
Senate. A memorial from Prince George's county had
been read asking for the immediate passage of an act
of secession. The Committee on Federal Relations
adopted a report setting forth the constitutional inability
of the Legislature to comply with this request.
The minority report was also unfavorable to granting
the prayer of the petitioners, but was silent as to the
constitutional power of the Legislature to do so. The
majority report was accepted, the minority report having
been defeated by a vote of 53 to 13.° Only one member
protested that neither report of the committee gave an
opportunity to vote for secession.'
The action of the Legislature was somewhat of a sur-
prise. It was believed that the advocates of immediate
secession would show greater strength. While denying
the right of legislatures to pass acts of secession, the im-
plied meaning of the resolutions is that the state through
a convention could do so, and that such a body would soon
be called into existence to consider the question.
The Legislature thus early disavowed any attempts by
its own authority to break away from the Union, yet a
pronounced opposition to the United States Government
is the chief characteristic of its legislation during the
remainder of the session. The action of the autlioritics
of Baltimore on April 19 and subsequently in regard
to the passage of troops through the city, and the attempts
•Journal of the House of Dclepates, p. 22.
'Tile writer has been informed by a prominent citizen of that
time that a secession ordinance was carried to Frederick in the
pocket of a leading member of the Legislature.
579] Assembling of the Legislature. 75
to put the city in a state of defense were approved." The
loan of $500,000 was legahzed.° Leave was granted the
Ways and Means Committee of the House to prepare a
bill appropriating $2,000,000 for the defense of the state.'"
Other financial measures of an unusual nature received
the attention of the Legislature at this session. The sus-
pension of specie payments by the state banks was held
to be justifiable because of the commercial disturbances."
As another measure of relief, the banks of issue were
empowered to send out notes of less than one dollar to
the amount of $5000, or to ten per cent of the paid-in
stock.^^ On April 2y, leave was granted the Currency
Committee of the House to introduce a bill permitting the
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to issue small notes
to a limited amount to be used as currency. Several days
later, the committee reported unfavorably on the project,
and the matter was referred to the Baltimore delegation."
It is hardly surprising that the subject was not introduced
again.
On April 27, the House of Delegates called upon
Hicks and Adjutant General Brewer for an account of the
expenditure of the $70,000 provided for at the previous
Legislature for the purchase and distribution of arms, etc.,
to military companies throughout the state. The report
which followed showed that arms had been sent to nearly
every county in the state. The House, however, did not
approve of the manner in which this had been done, and
even alleged irregularities in accounts." Subsequently a
committee was appointed to examine the records of the
Adjutant General." Likewise the commissions of several
officers in the state militia who were known to be pro-
nounced Southern sympathizers, and who were technically
' April 27 and May 8. » Ibid.
'"April 29, 1861. Bill never reported. "May 3, 1861.
" May I, 1861. "Journal of House of Delegates, pp. 21-29.
"June 12, House Documents of 1861, Document I.
"June 20, Journal of House of Delegates, p. 289.
76 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [580
disqualified because of failure to observe certain regula-
tions, were made valid.
These instances, which are not very serious, represent
the only attempts made by the Legislature to pass meas-
ures warlike in nature, or actively hostile to the United
States Government, with the exception of the mysterious
and ill-fated "Safety Bill." The Legislature had hardly
met before the air was thick with rumors of projects to
place Maryland in a complete state of defense; and in so
doing, to take away from Hicks as much authority as was
possible. On May i, in secret session, Senator Yellott
introduced a bill subsequently widely known as the
" Safety Bill." The measure, in short, provided for the
appointment of commissioners with powers almost dic-
tatorial in extent, and who were to replace not only the
head of the military organization in the state, but were
also to obtain a supervision in some respects over the civil
departments of the state government. The argument was
brought forward in defense of the bill that Maryland was
in a critical condition, and that only drastic measures,
implying a partial introduction of military law over the
state, would suflfice to cope with the dangers threatening
the people."
The Senate, after holding secret sessions on two days,
was unable to come to any agreement as to the provisions
of the bill, and thereupon opened its doors and gave the
proposed bill to the public. The evening of May 2 and
all of the day following were given to a discussion of the
measure. Its opponents at first were in a minority, but
were untiring in their efforts to defeat it. When it seemed
probable that the proposed bill would pass, attempts were
made to change the personnel of the board as provided for,
by placing on it men who were " strongly Union."
"The commissioners were to be seven in number. Of those
originally selected, Hicks was the only one not known to be a
proncjunccd Southern sympathizer.
581] Assembling of the Legislature. 77
Amendments were also offered which would strip the
measure of its most radical features, but these were gen-
erally defeated. As an instance, the Senate, by a vote of
eight to twelve, refused to insert the clause: "but shall
not have power to treat with any foreign power." One
member in sarcasm suggested that the measure be called
not a "Bill for the Public Safety," but to "Establish a
Military Despotism." After much heated discussion and
successful attempts at filibustering, during which the oppo-
sition seemed to be gaining ground, on May 3, the
bill was sent back to the Committee on Federal Relations,
from which it never reappeared.
Though nearly every one found some features in the
proposed measure which were deemed objectionable, yet
undoubtedly a not inconsiderable number of persons looked
upon its provisions, taken as a whole, distasteful as they
were and out of harmony with the generally accepted
theories of republican institutions, as necessary in view of
the position of Maryland in the presence of the Federal
Administration. Whatever may have been the original
strength of the supporters of the measure, the storm of
opposition which soon broke forth was irresistible. Peti-
tions poured in upon the senators, and upon members of
the House also, though this body never considered the
proposed bill or any similar to it." S. Teackle Wallis, a
member of the Legislature from Baltimore and Chairman
of the Committee on Federal Relations, subsequently de-
clared that the entire Baltimore delegation was opposed
to the measure, and expressed the opinion that the framers
and supporters of the bill did not at the time realize its
" Among the petitions was one which came by telegraph. This
the Senate refused to consider, but took advantage of the oppor-
tunity to attempt to refute the charges made against the proposed
bill, and to declare that these had arisen through a misapprehension
of the real nature of the measure. This justification was offered
simply as a defense of the past, since consideration of the proposed
bill, and to declare that these had arisen through a misapprehension
1861, May 8, p. 90.
78 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [582
far-reaching eflfects, not to mention its undoubted uncon-
stitutionality." A senator who liad supported the bill on
its second reading explained that he had only done so in
order to open it to the proposers of amendments.'" The
bill was strangled in the committee after rcconmiitment,
and no measure at all similar was proposed during the
session.
Commercially Baltimore was almost prostrated. Rail-
road communications with the North were cut ofT by the
destruction of the bridges on the Northern Central and
the Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroads.
Transit to the South was practically impossible since the
Annapolis and Washington roads were under the control
of the United States Government. Cars l)ringing provi-
sions were stopped for examination at Relay and other
points. Passengers were sometimes allowed to pass over
the Annapolis Road after it was repaired, though for sev-
eral days the United States Government would permit no
coaches to pass between Washington and Baltimore ex-
cept those for the sole purpose of carrying soldiers. The
authorities of Baltimore after the outbreak of April
19, had forbidden the sending away of provisions from
the city." For a time the markets of the city were almost
destitute of food owing to the fear of the country raisers
to take their produce into the city. The wharves were
deserted, and business in general suffered from stagna-
tion. The condition of affairs was so grievous, that the
Mayor and City Council of l-?altimore petitioned the T^egis-
lature to take steps to open up communications with the
North by repairing the railroad bridges which had been
" Correspondence between Wallis and Senator Jolin Shcnnan of
Ohio.
" McKaif? of Allegany. See American. May 10, 1861.
" Washington was tided over mainly by the seizure by tlie United
States Government of the output of the flouring mills in George-
town. Washington in March and April 1861, by Lieut. -Gen. Chas.
R. Stone, Magazine of American History, volume xiv, ^11.
583] Assembling of the Legislature. 79
injured and in some cases destroyed. Petitions of the
same nature were also forwarded by private citizens of
Baltimore. In response, the House of Delegates adopted
a report declaring- as inadvisable the opening of a route to
the North, since thereby " facilities for invasion were of-
fered to the fanatical and excited multitudes of the north-
ern cities . . . whose animosity to Baltimore and Mary-
land is measured by no standard known to Christian civili-
zation, and who publicly threaten our destruction, without
subordination even to the Federal authority ... it would
hardly be consistent with the commonest prudence to reopen
the avenues which would bring them to our very doors."
The occupation of the soil of Maryland, and the seizure
of railroads and other works of internal improvement par-
tially or wholly owned by the state were denounced as an
outrage upon the honor of the state. The resolutions
also provided for the appointment of Otho Scott, R. M.
McLane, and William J. Ross as commissioners to com-
municate in person with Lincoln, and to protest against
the treatment of Maryland as a " conquered province."
The threat was indirectly thrown out that the Legislature
would adopt no measures to reopen communication to
the North by way of Baltimore, unless the Federal Admin-
istration should explain satisfactorily the harsh measures
which had been employed in dealing with Maryland. The
resolutions were agreed to by both houses without a dis-
senting voice.
The committee subsequently reported that Lincoln in
the presence of Seward and Cameron, had received them
courteously, and had, in the main, agreed with them that
as Maryland had not taken a " hostile attitude " against
the United States, that indignities should not be cast upon
her. However no definite promise was made to them that
the military occupation of some parts of Maryland should
cease, though the committee expressed a belief that some
modification might be expected."
^' Senate Documents of 1861, Document D.
80 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [584
This was the first of a number of resohitions in regard
to the Federal administration which were passed during
the memorable session of the Legislature, and which grad-
ually changed in tone from simple protests to violent de-
nunciations breathing forth an air of defiant hostility to
the United States Government.
The friendliness evinced towards Virginia by the Mary-
land Legislature is everywhere apparent in the records of
the relations at this time between the two states. From
the time of the election of Lincoln to the outbreak of
hostilities, the mass-meetings and various forms of assem-
blies held in Maryland in favor of a pro-southern policy,
had almost invariably staked the action of the state upon
the course to be followed by Virginia. This feeling of
dependence upon Virginia can be understood when it is
considered that not only was Maryland connected closely
with this state by an affinity of institutions and industrial
activities; but also that Virginia from her geographical
situation half surrounded Maryland, and controlled the
outlet of her water highways. A feeling had long existed
that Maryland's policy was necessarily bound up with that
of Virginia. Consequently when complaints of border out-
rages by Virginia troops arose, the Maryland Legislature
showed no irritation, but expressed a willingness to rest
the case on the magnanimity of that state.
On the very day tliat the Legislature assembled. Hicks
wrote to the .Sheriff of Frederick county asking for an
account of the reported seizure of property of citizens of
Maryland by Virginia troops from Harpers Ferry. The
report was communicated to the Legislature, on April 29,
of a meeting held at Weverton, Washington county, which
adopted resolutions asking protection from Virginia
troops." Immediately a petition was sent to Hicks from
certain citizens of the same locality which protested
against the resolutions of the meeting at Weverton, and
Moore: Rebellion Records, volume i, p. 175.
585] Assembling of the Legislature. 81
declared that only one house had been searched by Vir-
ginia troops, and that had been done without official sanc-
tion.'" The House of Delegates took this view of the
matter by a unanimous vote, but favored the sending of
a commissioner to Virginia, with powers to make arrange-
ments for the protection of the property and citizens of
Maryland from " any ill advised acts of the military forces
of Virginia." The Senate concurred unanimously with the
resolutions of the House, and Outerbridge Horsey was
appointed as commissioner. Hicks also wrote to Gov-
ernor Letcher strongly protesting against the " outrages "
alleged. The members of the House of Delegates dis-
approved of the position Hicks had taken and declared
themselves " confirmed in the propriety of postponing ac-
tion for the present upon the matters in question by a cor-
respondence between His Excellency, the Governor, and
the Governor of Virginia, which they find in the news-
papers, and which they presume to be authentic, from its
having been several days before the public without con-
tradiction. But for this latter fact, they would have felt
it their duty to presume that the Executive would not
have corresponded with the Virginia authorities upon a
subject which he had brought before the Legislature, and
upon which it was acting without at all events apprising
us of its character or results. Doubtless however His
Excellency has been governed, in so an unusual proceed-
ing, by reasons which he deems satisfactory." " Horsey
reported to the Legislature on June 6 that Letcher
disclaimed any intention to commit outrages upon citizens
of Maryland and offered to pay damages for such as com-
mitted." Four or five hundred Virginia troops were en-
'* Journal of House of Delegates, i86i, p. 54.
"Journal of House of Delegates, 1861, pp. 142-3.
"Ibid., pp. 176-82.
The claims were settled by Virginia to the satisfaction of the
parties demanding damages. Journal of House of Delegates, p.
181.
40
82 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [586
camped on the Maryland side opposite Harpers Ferry.
Governor Letcher on having this fact called to his atten-
tion by Horsey replied that if such occupation had taken
place temporarily " it could only be justified by the press-
ing exigency of a military necessity in defense and protec-
tion of her own soil from threatened invasion and certainly
with no hostile intent towards the citizens of the State of
Maryland and that any and all damages to persons or
property consequent upon such alleged trespass or occu-
pation should be fully and liberally compensated for." "
No objection was found by the Maryland Legislature to
Virginia's attitude in spite of the fact that Virginia was
opposing by force the Federal Union of which Maryland
was a member. Indeed the Legislature took considerable
pains to preserve cordial relations wath Virginia during
this session."
The Legislature had shown itself at every step as en-
tirely out of sympathy with the policy of Lincoln; yet no
formal declaration on the subject was made for several
weeks after the beginning of the session. Tlie principal
reason for this was the wide divergence of opinions which
existed among its members, and therefore no agreement
could be reached. Many sets of resolutions defining in as
many ways what should be the policy of Maryland were
ofifered from time to time and buried in the Committee of
Federal Relations. Meanwhile the people of the state
were anxiously awaiting some formal statement from the
Legislature. After numberless conferences and attempts
at compromise had taken place, on May 9, the Com-
mittee on Federal Relations in the House brought in a
report."
The resolutions strongly protested against the policy
"Journal of House of Delegates, p. 180.
" A commission was sent to Delaware on a purpose somewhat
similar.
"Journal of House of Delegates, p. 106; House Documents of
1861, Document F.
587] Assembling of the Legislature. 83
of coercion adopted by the Federal Government, and de-
clared Maryland to be entirely neutral in the conflict.
Military occupation of the state by the United States Gov-
ernment was condemned as a " flagrant violation of the
Constitution," Two other clauses were of special import-
ance: One of these expressed a desire that the Southern
Confederacy should be recognized by the United States
Government, since the restoration of the former Union was
deemed impossible; the second declared "that under exist-
ing conditions it is not expedient to call a sovereign con-
vention of the state at this time, or to take any measures
for the immediate reorganization and arming of the mili-
tia." The House adopted the resolutions by a vote of 43
to 13. The minority had offered substitute resolutions
going no further than to declare the neutrality of Mary-
land while Washington should be the capital of the United
States.
The Senate on the same day. May 9, had resolved that
a joint committee of eight members — four from the Senate
and four from the House — be appointed; two of which
were to wait upon the President of the United States, two
upon the President of the Southern Confederacy, two upon
the Governor of Pennsylvania, and two upon the Governor
of Virginia. The object aimed at was the obtainment of
a cessation of hostilities until Congress should meet and
have an opportunity to settle the existing troubles. On
May 13, the House refused to concur with the resolutions
of the Senate, urging with much reason that as Virginia
and Pennsylvania were only members of general govern-
ments, they were unable to form treaties or to agree to any
cessation of hostilities. Besides the House declared itself
unwilling to enter into any negotiations with Pennsylvania
because of the " intensity of rancor " which it was claimed
the latter had exhibited towards Maryland. Indeed the
whole mission was declared to be useless, since the desire
of the Southern Confederacy to cease hostilities was very
evident; while the determination of the United States Gov-
84 Goz'cnwr Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [588
ernment to attempt to force the members of the former
was as well known. The relations between the Senate
and House became quite strained, but soon a joint com-
mittee from the two houses came to an agreement, by
which no commissioners were sent to Virginia or Penn-
sylvania, but four to Lincoln and the same number to
Davis.
It had been quite generally believed, from the previous
utterances of the Legislature, that the recognition of the
Southern Confederacy would be advocated; but the de-
claration against the calling of a convention was somewhat
of a surprise — had it come a week or two earlier, it would
have been much more surprising. But a change had grad-
ually been coming about in affairs generally throughout
the state. The Legislature had been assembled in answer
to the demand that Maryland should be allowed to act
through her constituted authorities. A large majority of
the members of the Legislature had met with the inten-
tion of taking definite action in some way, but the con-
sideration as to how this was to be done had given rise to
long and even fruitless discussion. Even the proposal to
allow the people of the state to decide by means of an elec-
tion of members to a state convention had been declared
infeasible, though for months a constant demand for a
convention had been made by a large element in the state.
One of the newspapers stated the opinions of the radical
Union party when it declared that a convention had not
been called because the members of the Legislature real-
ized that the people would elect delegates of strongly
Union views." However this may be, certainly other rea-
sons also had an influence upon the members of the Legis-
lature in inducing them to come to a decision not to call
a convention.
The so-called " Liberty Bill " had met an ignominious
death, little lamented even by its advocates. A third
*• Baltimore American, May 9, 1861.
589] Assembling of the Legislature. 85
measure which was suggested as a means by which the
state could take some definite action w^as the proposal to
arm the state militia. Resolutions having this end in view
were introduced at various times into the Legislature; but
that body finally decided that such an attempt would be
inexpedient at the time.
The Legislature, though it had met to consider and to
adopt measures which would secure the welfare of the
state, had really done nothing beyond protesting against
the poHcy of the Federal Administration. That Assembly,
however much the nature of its resolutions may be con-
demned or approved of, should not be charged with an
intention to waste time. The majority of the members of
that body, holding the views that they did, found them-
selves unable to act otherwise. The rapid course of events
was constantly rendering more imperative either a policy
of inaction, or an endorsement of the Federal Adminis-
tration. The latter the Legislature most assuredly would
not give. It is therefore advisable to notice the trend of
events which had brought about this condition.
The inevitable reaction which follows every outbreak
of violence was very marked after the disorders in Balti-
more. Hardly a week had elapsed from April 19, be-
fore a change in feelings, as far as expressed, was per-
ceptible. How far this result was due to the facts that the
Union sentiment had held itself in abeyance on that day;
how far to the " sober second thought " and to a clearer
realization of the misery and bloodshed which a war neces-
sarily entailed; and how far the radical pro-southern ele-
ment was overawed, and the " Union " adherents encour-
aged by the nearness of armed forces of the United States
Government, are questions which are not easily answered.
The fact remains that the radical Union party constantly
increased in strength and boldness. Newspapers which
had given a very lukewarm support to the Federal Admin-
istration, became more pronounced in its advocacy. One
paper which had always been strongly pro-southern, and
86 Gozrrnor Hicks of Maryland and tlie Civil War. [590
which, just after April 19, had condemned Hicks for not
having called the Legislature together so that steps might
have been taken to avoid the outbreaks of that day, and
had declared that there existed an urgent necessity for
calling a state convention to decide Maryland's policy,
later advocated a passive course. It held that if the state
should decide to withdraw from the Union, it was best to
wait until the war was over, when such action could be
taken without placing the property and lives of the citizens
of the state in jeopardy. For the present, Maryland
should remain neutral. It would be madness to attack
the Northern states; while hostile action towards the
Southern states should be avoided, since it was very prob-
able that on some not distant day, Maryland would unite
with them. A few days later the paper still advocated a
convention, but only with the modifying provision, of ques-
tionable constitutionality, that the Legislature in calling
the convention should stipulate that no ordinance of seces-
sion should be passed as long as Washington should be
the capital of the United States. The prediction was added
that the removal of the seat of government from Wash-
ington would not occur in the lifetime of the present in-
habitants of the state nor of their immediate posterity.
This lumbering statement can mean little else than an
expression of opposition to Maryland's leaving the L^nion
at any time.
On May i, the United States flag was'" hoisted at the
custom house in Baltimore. A Union convention met
on May 2, and decided to adjourn until May 23, to
give the members from the counties opportunity to
attend." Mass-meetings were held which condemned the
proposed " Safety Bill " and expressed approval of the
Federal Government. On Mav 6, General Trimble issued
••Baltimore American and Sun, etc., May 2. 1861.
" Baltimore American, May 3; Baltimore Sun, May 6; Clipper,
May 8.
591] Assembling of the Legislature. 87
an order disbanding the local guards which had been
organized on, and shortly after, April 19.^ Mayor
Brown in a communication to the City Council of Balti-
more expressed the opinion that the people of Maryland
had decided to submit to the Federal Government." He
therefore advised the City Council to request the Legis-
lature to repair the railroad bridges/* Within a week's
time he withdrew the order forbidding the display of any
flags in the city. The bridges were eventually repaired,
after the refusal of the Legislature to do so, and by the
middle of May, traffic over the roads went on.
Governor Hicks had not been in personal consultation
with Lincoln or members of his Cabinet since April
17, when he had attempted to impress upon them the
general unwillingness of the people of Maryland to aid in
coercing the Southern states; but his correspondence with
Washington during the following two weeks is quite large.
Though he had opposed the occupation of Annapolis by
Federal troops, he soon realized that the passage by way
of that city was the course which was the least likely to
arouse opposition from the radical pro-southern element
in the state. The decidedly unfriendly tone which the
Maryland Legislature adopted towards the United States
Government at its convening, together with hostile utter-
ances of the newspapers of the North, led Hicks to believe
that attempts would be made by the Federal administra-
tion, or more probably by volunteer companies from the
North on the way to Washington, to force a way through
the streets of Baltimore. On April 30, while in Fred-
erick, Hicks wrote to Scott urging him to prevent such
steps being taken."' The next day Reverdy Johnson went
to Washington bearing a letter from Hicks, in which the
'" Baltimore American, May 7; Baltimore Sun, May 7.
°^ Baltimore American, May 8; Baltimore Sun, May 8.
" Baltimore American, May 8; Baltimore Sun, May 8.
"^ Letter to Scott is to be found in the Letter Book of the Execu-
tive.
88 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [592
latter obligated himself in advance to agree to any terms
which Johnson should make/" Both of these letters indi-
cate that whatever of indecision had existed in Hicks'
mind as to what should be his attitude towards the United
States Government, was now gone; and his intention to
support the Federal administration was unmistakably
manifested. The letters also show Hicks' belief that a
great change was coming over public feeling; and that as
a consequence, the sentiment would soon be almost unani-
mously in favor of the Union. Yet he realized that any ex-
ercise of force in Maryland would abruptly stop the move-
ment which had set in. Therefore, he urged that Maryland
be let alone entirely for a while. In the present case, he
never denied the right of the United States to pass troops
through Maryland, but simply declared that such an action
was ill-timed and would tend to prolong and intensify the
disturbances which then existed in the state. Whether his
policy is justifiable or not on ethical grounds, it was cer-
tainly the one, under the circumstances, which was most
conducive to the restoration of order in the state; and to
his influence with the Administration during the following
month, is largely due the securing for Maryland even of
the small measures of independence of action which was
left to her.
The strained relations which had existed between Hicks
and the Legislature during the year previous have been
touched upon. After that period the members of the domi-
nant party in the Legislature had unsparingly condemned
Hicks for not having called a special session. With these
facts in view, it is not surprising that little cooperation
•• Letter is to be found in the Letter Book of the Executive.
Rcverdy Johnson had been very active in his cflforts to secure
from Lincoln a cessation of hostilities. The latter had once gone
so far as to say in a confidential letter of April 24 to Johnson:
" T have no objection to saying a thousand times that I have no
purpose to invade Virginia, nor any other state, but I do not
mean to let them invade us without striking back." — Nicnlay and
Hay: Abraham Lincoln, volume ii. p. 37.
593] Assembling of the Legislature. 89
between the executive and legislative departments of gov-
ernment took place at this time. The Legislature had
hardly assembled before a collision came on the questions
of military affairs. During the excitement on April
19, Hicks had consented to call out the military com-
panies of Baltimore; but he later became of the opinion
that the formation of local guards throughout the state
was inadvisable; since, he declared, the larger number of
the members of these companies wanted to go into the
service of the Confederacy, and were only holding back
in the hopes that Maryland would secede. On April
29, Hicks issued a proclamation " warning all persons
from enlisting on military service within the state with-
out complying with the conditions imposed by law," etc.
Hicks based the justification for his action on the ground
that these military companies are "subversive of good
order, and in the present excited condition of the public
mind, are well calculated to imperil the public peace." "
On May 6, Hicks issued a proclamation declaring that the
commission of Tench Tilghman, who had been appointed
Major of the 2nd Division of Maryland militia, was invalid
because of the failure of Tilghman to comply with certain
provisions of the law."' This order aroused considerable
adverse criticism from the pro-southern element, since it
was believed to have been done as the first step in the pla-
cing of the control of the state militia in the hands of those
who were in sympathy with the Federal administration.
The House of Delegates soon took an occasion to express
its disapproval of these acts of Hicks, and declared that
the charge against Tilghman was based only upon the
flimsiest of pretexts; and thereupon voted to make valid
his commission."*
The sessions of the Legislature were held in a strong-
'^ Baltimore Sun, May 2, 1861 ; Baltimore American, May i, 1861.
" Baltimore American, May 8, 1861.
"Journal of House of Delegates, p. 128; Journal of Senate of
June 20, p. 236.
90 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [594
hold of the " Union " party; nevertheless Hicks was by no
means freed from possible danger while in Frederick. If
well-matured plots against his life and liberty did not exist,
certainly much talk to that effect, as hitherto, was rife.
An interesting story is told by a writer, who was prominent
at that time as a radical sympathizer with the Confederacy,
of a plan, in which he was to be a principal, to ride into
Frederick with a detachment of soldiers, seize Hicks and
carry him to Virginia, hoping thereby to give the Anti-
Administration party in Maryland free rein. The design
was communicated to the members of the Legislature un-
officially, but they showed such vigorous opposition that
the scheme was dropped.*"
On May 5, Butler, in obedience to an order from Scott
on the preceding day, took possession of Relay, only a
few miles from Baltimore, and the occupation of the latter
soon followed." During the night of May 13, Butler
quietly entered Baltimore. Less than a month before, the
streets of the city had been crowded with great masses of
men, forcibly resisting the passage of troops to Washing-
ton. But at this time, little or no opposition was offered,
though the United States soldiers came to take possession
of the city. This is largely to be accounted for by the fact
that the entrance was effected almost before any opposition
could have taken place; but also a change in feeling had
come about in Baltimore, and violent opposition to the
Federal administration had largely given away to an ap-
pearance of apathy. Butler immediately issued an ordi-
nance which practically put the city under martial law.
As soon as Scott had heard of the occupation of Balti-
more, he censured Butler severely." It seems probable
however that the rebuke was called forth from the Admin-
*• Military History of the Confederacy, Volume on Maryland, pp.
3i(>-^7, I'y Bradley T. Johnson.
" War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, p. 620.
*" War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, p. 28.
Butler was soon removed from the command in Baltimore.
595] Assembling of the Legislature. 91
istration more because Butler had dared to take the step
without positive orders, than that the cabinet was adverse
to seeing Baltimore seized by the army of the United
States. Indeed, the fact can be shown clearly that the occu-
pation of Baltimore had been considered for some time
by Lincoln and the War Department. As early as April
29, Cameron had accused the authorities of Baltimore
of bad faith, and declared that the necessity existed of
occupying the city." On the next day Scott wrote that " the
next step will be by force to occupy Baltimore." " The
proposed attack as outlined by Scott was to be made by
forces coming from four points and meeting at the same
time before the city. One force was to come from Relay;
a second from York, Pa.; a third from Havre de Grace;
a fourth from Annapolis by water. In the conclusion of
the letter giving a detailed account of the plans, Scott
wrote : " Nothing shall prevent the occupation of Balti-
more by a competent force but the voluntary reopening of
free communications by rail and wires through Baltimore
and Maryland before our preparations are ready." " Con-
nection between Washington and the North, by way only
of Annapolis and Havre de Grace, by water, was looked
upon by the Administration as needlessly long, circuitous,
inconvenient, liable to serious derangement, and on the
whole inconsistent with the dignity of the United States
Government. On May 3, Cameron declared that the "Ad-
ministration cannot afiford to temporize with Baltimore."
" They (the people of Baltimore and of Maryland at
large), must agree to restore the property they have de-
stroyed, and make reparation for damages, before we can
open communication by their city. They must also agree
that the Federal Government shall have the absolute
right to move troops through their city or to quarter them
in any part of the state." On May 4, Scott decided that
** War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, p. 604. " Ibid., p. 607.
" War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, p. 607. " Ibid., p. 618.
92 Governor Hicks of Maryland a)id the Ciz'il War. [596
it was advisable to increase the forces which were to make
the attack upon Bahimore. Butler was ordered to move
up to Relay and concerted action between Butler, Com-
mander of the Annapolis Department, and Patterson,
Commander of the Pennsylvania Department, was insisted
upon.*' Scott again and again urged that operations
should begin, but Patterson delayed the carrying out of the
plans on the ground that his troops were not adequately
equipped." At this juncture, Scott was led to believe that
the authorities of Baltimore would not oppose the passage
of troops through the city, and indeed would offer protec-
tion to them. Thereupon he deferred indefinitely the at-
tack on the city and ordered Butler to retire from Relay.**
Mayor Brown in a message to the City Council had set for-
ward the inadvisability of offering any open resistance to
the operations of the United States Government; and the
public at large actuated by this and other reasons, seems
to have decided upon such a course of action, for on May 9
United States troops passed unmolested through Balti-
more.
The Administration had realized the necessity of having
Baltimore under its control, not only because the hostile
elements therein constituted a constant menace to Wash-
ington, but also because a clear route to the North was
imperative; and had decided to adopt vigorous measures
to secure this end. The only thing which prevented Balti-
more, near the end of April or in the early part of May,
from being surrounded by four divisions of United States
troops for the purpose of being carried by storm, was the
unwillingness of Patterson to take the field at the time.
In view of the excitement prevailing in the city, and the
vigorous preparations for defense which were going on,
it is quite probable that resistance would have been
" Ihid.. p. 620.
" War of Rebellion, series i. volume ii. 622-628. *" Ibid., 627.
" Raltimore Sun, May 8; Baltimore American, May 8; ibid..
May 10.
597] Assembling of the Legislature. 93
offered to the United States forces. Had Baltimore been
fired upon, it is possible that the Legislature would have
been swept along by the upheaval of public sentiment in
taking steps looking towards secession."
Just before the occupation of Baltimore, a fear grew up
in Frederick that a large body of men were coming from
the former to sustain the Legislature, which was rumored
to be on the eve of adopting measures favorable to seces-
sion." The danger was felt to be so great that Hicks
called out the militia forces available, under General
Shriver, and the Judge of the Court of Frederick county
sent to Butler for assistance." The situation in Frederick
undoubtedly had much to do with influencing Butler to
seize Baltimore. It is not clear whether Hicks advocated
such a movement, or even knew of it in advance; still he
was in close communication with the Federal administra-
tion by this time, though not yet altogether in sympathy
with the coercion policy being carried out.
The occupation of Baltimore took place when the Legis-
lature was on the eve of adjournment. The House and
Senate after having come almost to an open breach on
some questions, were agreed that it was useless to attempt
to offer any active opposition to the policy of the United
States Government as evidently planned for Maryland and
the Southern states generally. Annapolis and Baltimore
were occupied by United States troops, and the state
as a w^hole was under the watchful surveillance of the
Federal administration. The strength of the unconditional
Union party in the western part of the state had been
" Butler expressed great indignation at his treatment by Scott,
and tried to justify his course upon the ground that Baltimore,
because of its size and the unfriendly spirit it had exhibited towards
the United States Government, was a constant source of trouble.
Lincoln soon afterwards made Butler a Major-Gencral.
" During the last days of this session of the Legislature, the feel-
ing in that body towards the United States Government seemed to
have been much more hostile than previously.
"' War of Rebellion, series i, volume vii, p. 630.
94 Govcnwr Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [598
shown by the municipal election in Cumberland, and the
election of Fiery of Washington county, to fill a vacancy
in the Legislature, almost without opposition," The mem-
bers of the Legislature realized that they were unable to
cause Lincoln to change his policy in regard to Maryland,
yet they were not willing to leave the control of state
affairs entirely in the hands of Hicks. They believed,
with much reason, that he would be adverse to summoning
again in special session that body which held and expressed
views so contrary to his own; for by this time the opinion
prevailed generally that Hicks was entirely on the side of
the Federal administration, though he still seems to have
thought that the state could remain practically neutral."
The Legislature declared that the supreme welfare of
Maryland was in jeopardy, and therefore decided that it
was necessary for it to meet from time to time, as the
occasions should demand, so as to be in readiness to pro-
tect as far as possible the interests of the state. The ad-
journment was to last until June 4. Ever since the
Legislature had been in session much dissatisfaction had
been expressed by a number of its members, that Frederick
and not Annapolis should be the place of meeting. Propo-
sitions were offered to reconvene on June 4 in Annapolis,
but these were held to be undesirable because of the pres-
ence there of United States troops. Baltimore was equally
as objectionable to the majority of the members for the
same reason. The towns on the Eastern Shore were incon-
veniently located. Finally Frederick though a stronghold
of radical "Union" sentiment, was agreed upon after futile
efforts had been made to secure an adjoiirnniont sine die.
These attempts had failed though they were supported by
the radical " Union men " and by a number of members of
very strong Southern sympathies who were convinced that
** Held May 4, 1861. Vote — Fiery, 3,952; scattering, 132. Journal
of House of Delegates, p. 78.
" Hicks on .May 14 called for volunteers to fill tlic first (luota
called for by Lincoln.
599] Assembling of the Legislature. 95
the Legislature could do absolutely nothing to stay the
hand of Lincoln.
At this day it is not exactly clear what the Legislature
hoped to accomplish by deciding to reconvene on June
4. The rather vague and indefinite statements which
were made at that day, that the highest organ of govern-
ment should in times of so great moment and peril, be
always ready to act, in view of the circumstances even as
understood then, do not explain much. It seems to have
been held that, as a last resort, if the oppression of the
United States Government should become intolerable,
the people of the state, acting through the official organs,
could offer resistance. However that may be, the Legis-
lature must have realized that the anti-administration
party, if not losing in numbers, was constantly becoming
more and more helpless.
On the day of the adjournment of the Legislature, Ross
Winans, a member of that body from Baltimore, was ar-
rested by an officer of the United States army, acting
without a writ from a civil magistrate. Hicks who was on
the same train tried in vain to secure the release of Winans.
Shortly afterwards, Winans was released on a promise not
to extend assistance to the Confederacy. This arrest was
bitterly criticised.
On May 14, after nearly a month of hesitation,
Hicks issued a call for four regiments to make up the
quota of Maryland as fixed by the proclamation of Lin-
coln on April 15. John R. Kenley was empowered
by Hicks to take charge of these regiments.'^ Hicks still
seemed to have an idea that a neutral position was possible
for Maryland — at least in a measure so — for in his procla-
mation, he declared that the troops were not to be sent
outside of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Cam-
eron promptly refused to accept this offer of troops on the
grounds that volunteers for three months were not de-
'"' Letter Book of the Executive, May 14.
9G Goz'crnor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [600
sired/' Lincoln had shortly before sent out a second call
for troops who were to serve three years. However re-
cruiting stations were set up in Baltimore, Frederick, and
other places, and no great diflficulty was experienced in
obtaining volunteers/'
These facts clearly mark the end of the struggle of
Maryland through her official organs against the United
States Government, and the beginning of that period when
the state, partly through force, and partly through inclina-
tion, is found actively supporting the policy of the Federal
administration. Concerted opposition to the United States
Government was rendered almost impossible; and thence-
forward the latter had to deal with individual cases almost
entirely. After months of uncertainty, confusion and tu-
mult, Hicks very materially aided by the Federal adminis-
tration, had outplayed his opponents and was winning
steadily.
" Letter Book of the Executive, May 17.
" Subsequently throughout the war, Maryland nearly filled the
quotas demanded.
CHAPTER IX.
RUPTURE BETWEEN HICKS AND THE
LEGISLATURE.
Hicks now made very apparent his intention to lend
active assistance to the United States Government. That
hesitation under which he had previously labored, seems
to have left him entirely; and his course was henceforth
almost completely free from those vacillations which at
times were perhaps more apparent than real, and not so
serious as often claimed, yet which for a time, had kept
Lincoln, and, in fact, the people of the North generally,
in a state of apprehension.
If any doubt existed as to the position of Hicks, it had
adequate ground for removal by the appearance of the
following order:
State of Maryland,
Annapolis, May 30, 1861.
To Col. E. R. Petherbridge:
Sir: You are hereby directed to collect immediately all
arms and accoutrements belonging to the State of Mary-
land and hold the same in safe keeping subject to my order.
Thos. H. Hicks,
Governor of Maryland.^
Hicks followed up this order by a proclamation calling
upon the people of Maryland to deliver state arms in their
possession to Colonel Petherbridge.'' The importance of
this step is evident when it is realized that the companies
throughout the state which were afifected by this order
' Letter Book of the Executive.
' Moore's Rebellion Record, volume i, pp. 347-8.
41
98 Governor llicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [GO:i
were, in the main, in sympathy with the Confederacy.
Hicks asserted that the existence of mihtary companies
was a constant source of unrest in the state, and tlierefore
he had decided to collect the arms belonging to the state.
The order was gradually carried out, though not without
much opposition in some places. By the law of i860, two
armories had been provided for; one at Easton and the
other at Frederick, which were to serve as headquarters
from which the arms were to be distributed. Hicks did
not stop at merely collecting the arms, but removed those
in Easton to Fort McHenry, and distributed a part of
those in Frederick among local companies or associations
of citizens who had joined together in a somewhat irregular
manner in forming organizations for the protection of the
city.*
Whether the order had for its primary object the removal
of a cause of disturbances, or was designed to prevent
any united opposition from being offered to the Federal
Administration in the state, the measure was bitterly criti-
cised. On June 5, the day after the Legislature re-
convened, the Senate passed a resolution calling upon
Hicks to give his reasons for his policy in this respect,
and what securities he had that the arms would be given
up by the United States Government on the demand for
the same by the authorities of the state.* Hicks in reply
denied the right of the Senate to ask these questions, but
expressed his willingness to give the information desired.
The arms were collected, he stated, since they were being-
carried outside of the state to aid " those persons now in
rebellion against the United States Government." Fort
McHenry was chosen as the place of depository on grounds
of prudence, since arms had been stolen from the state
arsenal in Baltimore. He added by way of conclusion:
" The security I have for the restoration of said arms when
* House Documents of 1861, Docuiiunt I.
'Journal of the Senate, j). 143.
603] Rupture betzveeii Hicks and the Legislature. 99
demanded by the proper authorities of the state Hes in the
honor of the United States Government, and its loyal
officers. I should have deemed it absurd and insulting to
have required any other security." '^ The letter of Hicks
only served to increase the estrangement between himself
and the Legislature, which had long existed, and conse-
quently their relations towards each other for the rest of
the session were characterized by an absolute lack of
cooperation. Recent events had shown Hicks to be en-
gaged in actively assisting the Federal Administration in
its efTorts to secure the assistance of Maryland in the war.
What the Legislature had lost in power it made up in the
bitterness with which it criticised and condemned the acts
of Hicks and Lincoln, which acts it was powerless to pre-
vent. Hicks looked upon the situation as a triumph for
himself. He claimed to believe that his course was
approved of by his constituents, and moreover he was
assured of the strong arm of the United States Govern-
ment to assist him in carrying out his plans. From the
Legislature he needed no longer to fear any serious check,
and subsequently his attitude to that body was that of
only slightly disguised contempt and defiance.
With these considerations in mind, the position taken
by the Senate is better understood. On June 21, that
body by a vote of twelve to four vigorously denounced
Hicks, calling the collection of arms a " palpable usurpa-
tion of authority." and styling Hicks a " military despot."
The Senate declared that " it is the imperative duty of the
Legislature to make a direct issue with the Governor of
the powers thus claimed, and to confine him to the exercise
of the powers and duties confided to him by the constitu-
tion and the laws." " Hicks was requested to return the
arms to the military companies from which thev had been
collected. It is hardly necessary to add that the " request "
was not granted.
Journal of Senate, p. 152. "Journal of the Senate, pp. 251-4.
100 Gorcr;ior Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [604
The law providing for the distribution of arms, etc., to
mihtary companies had required that the captains of these
companies should give bond to the state for the safe keep-
ing and return of these arms. Hicks had justified his
course in collecting the arms on the grounds that not only
were they being put to " treasonable " use by being sent
to the South, but that also the State of Maryland was
continually incurring financial loss thereby. The Legis-
lature tried to protect the captains of those companies,
which by accident or design had parted with arms received
from the state, by passing a law that no actions should be
taken against the bonds of these officers.' The act was
remedial in eflFect. With due allowance made for a belief
by the Legislature that the officers should not be held
responsible for acts of individual members of the com-
panies who had availed themselves of the general excite-
ment to send or to carry arms belonging to the state to
the South, yet the law passed by the Legislature can
hardly be regarded as other than an indirect attempt to
assist the cause of the Confederacy.
The House of Delegates came to a breach with Hicks
even sooner than did the Senate. On June 5, Hicks, in
response to a resolution of the House, sent the following
letter:'
Executive Chamber,
Frederick City, June 5, 1861.
Gentlemen of the House of Delegates:
In response to your order of this date, requesting me
" to furnish you, without delay, copies of all correspond-
ence which may have taken place between myself and any
officer or officers of the General Government since the 4th
of March last," I have to say that I have already furnished
your honorable body w'ith copies of all correspondence
between myself and officers of the General Govornnicnt
which T deem it necessary to lay before you.
Thos. H. Hicks.
'Senate Journal, p. 264. 'Journal of House of Delegates, p. 182.
605] Rupture betzvecn Hicks and the Legislature. 101
The abrupt tone of this note was not of a nature to re-
move the impression prevaihng among members of the
House of Delegates that Hicks had long been in active
though secret cooperation with the Federal administration,
and had been privy to the plans of those operations which
were rendering constantly the state less able to oppose in
any way the United States Government. A committee was
then appointed to examine the records in the office of the
Secretary of State of Maryland, and to find out the exact
relations which had existed since March 4, 1861, between
the Executive Department of the state and the General
Government." Several days later. Hicks sent a letter to
the House of Delegates in which he accused that body of
deliberately insulting him.'" He declared that he had vol-
untarily given the Legislature a full account of the corre-
spondence with the General Government, though he was
under no obligation to do so." However, he was willing
to give the committee free access to the executive records.
The investigation led to only a few important disclosures,
since the correspondence of Hicks was seldom placed in
the record books."
The arresting of civilians by military agents of the Gen-
eral Government, acting without the cooperation of the
civil authorities, was considered for some time before put
into operation. The suspension in Maryland of the writ
of habeas corpus had been recommended as an extreme
measure by Lincoln in a letter to Scott as early as April
" Committee consisted of Pitts, Mills and Compton. Journal of
House, p. 244.
'"Journal of House of Delegates, p. 266.
" Article H. Section 22, of the Constitution (1851) gave either
branch of the Legislature the right at any time to inspect the " re-
cord of all official acts and proceedings." Hicks was undoubtedly
wrong in his position.
'"The records of the preceding months were, as a rule, not copied
in the regular books at this time, and were therefore more or less
inaccessible.
Letter of J. R. Partridge, Secretary of State, to Hicks, June,
1861 (MS.).
J(>-.^ Governor /licks of Maryland and the Cri'il War. [606
25;" and the latter, the following day, apprised Butler of
this proposed step." On April 2y, Lincoln formally em-
powered Scott to suspend, whenever he (Scott) should
deem it necessary, the writ of habeas corpus anywhere on
or in the vicinity of any military line between Washington
and Philadelphia." The refusal of General Cadwallader to
obey a writ issued by Chief Justice Taney for the relief of
John Merryman. and the subsequent events in this famous
case are well known.
The introduction of this phase of military rule aroused
great opposition not only in Maryland, but in other parts
of the Union where enforced. The House of Delegates on
reassembling on Jtme 4, inquired of Hicks what he
liad done " to protect the citizens of the state " from the
arrests by the armed forces of the United States Govern-
fuent.'" Hicks replied that he had received neither any
" official information " of such arrests, nor any complaints
from persons so arrested, consequently he had taken no
action whatever.*' The House retorted that he hardly
needed to be " officially " informed of acts which had
attracted the attention of the whole country, and had called
forth an elaborate opinion from the Chief Justice of the
l^iiled States. Hicks w^as also reminded that only a few
months before he had deemed rumors and anonymous let-
ters to be of sufficient importance as to engage his careful
consideration. The resolutions adopted by the House of
Delegates, besides containing a scathing criticism of Hicks,
l)rotested against the exercise of military rule in Maryland
as Ijeing " subversive of the most sacred guarantees of the
constitution, and in flagrant violation of the fundamental
and most cherished principles of American free govern-
ment."" Hicks' position that the lack of official notifica-
" Nicolay and Hay: Work.s of Lincoln, volume ii, i). 3S.
" War of Rel)cllirn. .series i, volume ii, p. 601.
" Nicolay and Hay: Works of Lincoln, volume ii. p. 39.
"Journal of House of DelcRates, p. 170. ''Ibid., p. 183.
"House Documents of 18^)1. DocuineiU H.
607] Rupture betivccn Hicks and the Legislature. 103
tion precluded any action on his part was hardly tenable,
and his declaration seems to have been an attempt at eva-
sion. Certainly the Chief Executive of a state, in a matter
of such widespread interest and importance would hardly
believe it necessary or even advisable to defer his action,
if he intended taking any at all, until he had been formally
notified of the facts in the case. At that time he could not
have opposed the suspension of the writ because the
matter was such a serious one that such a step would have
required him to have broken away from the Federal admin-
istration. This he was unwilling to do; nor could he with
impunity have supported the policy of the latter in face
of the almost universal outcry of disapproval in the state.
Just about this time another incident occurred which
indicated that Hicks had determined to draw more closely
to the Federal administration. He requested Scott to
send a detachment of United States troops to occupy Fred-
crick. On the compliance of Scott, Hicks wrote to Gen-
eral Patterson, commanding in Pennsylvania, on June 9,
for a detachment of troops. The reasons assigned by Hicks
for his request for Federal aid were; first, to guard Fred-
erick from an attack by " rebels at Harpers Ferry," and
second, to stop the sending of provisions from Frederick
to the South.'" Patterson after some delay replied, saying
" that the people throughout your state, and especially in
the vicinity of Frederick, shall have protection as soon as
I can extend it consistently with the safety of other im-
portant interests confided to me and movements, one
object of which is to rid you forever of the parties of
whom you complain." ^^
'" Letter Book of the Executive.
"" War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, 673.
.A.t first Patterson received the messenger of Hicks, Gen. John
A. Steiner, somewhat coldly, saying that the people of Maryland
had forfeited their right to protection by their conduct on " April
iQth " and subsequently. Indeed he refused to take any action until
Gen. Steiner should return with an of^cial letter from Hicks.
Hence the letter quoted above.
104 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [608
The change which had come about in Hicks' position
is well evidenced by the letters to Scott and Patterson.
Formerly he had opposed the landing at Annapolis of
United States troops which were to pass only through
the state to Washington; he had even changed the place
of meeting of the Legislature presumably because he
wished to avoid any influence being exerted over the
deliberations of that body by the presence of a Federal
army. Yet now he calls on the United States Government
to send troops to take possession of that city, which for
the time being was the seat of the state government.
Hicks certainly desired the troops of the United States
Government in Frederick for the purpose of serving as a
check and overawing force upon the Legislature.
Another tilt occurred between Hicks and the House of
Delegates over the question of the state arms. A number
of these while on their way to a volunteer company in
Worcester county were seized by Butler on May 14.
Hicks was asked by the House of Delegates if these arms
were seized by his authority, where they were at that time,
and whether any attempt had been made to secure their
recovery. Hicks sharply replied that the first question
was impertinent, and for an answer to the second, the
Legislature was referred to Butler!" The House not to
be outdone in a display of acerbity of feeling, promptly
returned the message to Hicks."
On June 8, the Senate sent an order to Hicks for
a list of the nominations which he had made during the
recess of the Legislature."' Hicks refused to comply with
this request on the grounds that the law requiring him to
send nominations did not apply to special sessions." At
that time the question was of unusual importance, since
the men appointed to positions were assured of their places
"June 17, Journal of House of Delegates. 268.
"June 18, Journal of House of Delegates, 274.
''June 8, Journal of Senate, 165.
"June 19, Journal of Senate, 218.
609] Rupture between Hicks and the Legislature. 105
according to Hicks' interpretation until the following win-
ter; while if the Senate could act immediately upon the list
of appointments, those nominees who were inclined to
favor the Federal Administration would undoubtedly have
been rejected. At this time even minor officials were in a
position to aid or to impede quite seriously the exercise of
jurisdiction by the United States Government. Hicks,
however, persisted in refusing to send the list to the
Senate."
It is needless to go more at length into accounts of the
disputes between Hicks and members of the Legislature,
who were now openly at loggerheads. Hicks ignored the
Legislature whenever possible, although official relations
with that body did not altogether cease at this time.
The attitude of the Legislature toward the United States
Government, as might be imagined, became more marked
in its hostility, and the expression of friendliness for the
Confederacy became more and more pronounced. On May
13, commissioners from both houses had been appointed to
see both Lincoln and Davis, and to attempt to secure a
cessation of hostilities until Congress should assemble.
On June 4, the committee to which was assigned the
duty of waiting upon Lincoln obtained its discharge on the
grounds that the movement of Federal troops into Vir-
ginia, and the active commencement of hostilities had
rendered their mission useless."' Two weeks later the
committee which visited Davis delivered to the Legislature
a letter from him in which he expressed his appreciation
of the suggestions and expressions of good will sent by the
Maryland Legislature, and declared that the Confederacy
desired simply to be left alone." The resolutions adopted
by the Legislature differ but little from those of the pre-
vious sitting, except in being more radical in tone. By
^^ The language of the law is not clear, but it would seem as
though the Senate had the better argument on its side. Constitu-
tion of 1851, Article II, Section 11-14.
^'' Journal of Senate, 140. " Journal of Senate, 179.
KM) Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [610
large majorities in both houses, resolutions were adopted
which protested against the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus, military occupation of Maryland, and the
war against the Confederacy. The question of the right
of a state to secede from the Union came up again in this
way. The resolutions as at first prepared had declared
that secession was justifiable, not on constitutional, but on
revolutionary grounds, and that coercion received no sanc-
tion from the constitution. An effort was made to amend
this report by substituting a clause which proclaimed seces-
sion to be a constitutional right; also an amendment which
expressed approval of the coercion policy of the Federal
administration was proposed, but both of these attempts
were unsuccessful. The result agreed upon was of the
nature of a compromise, though the odds were in favor of
the former; still it must be admitted that the phraseology
of the resolutions is somewhat obscure. It was resolved:
" That the right of separation from the Federal Union is a
right neither arising under nor prohibited by the Constitu-
tion, but a sovereign right independent of the Constitution
to be exercised by the several states upon their own
responsibility." ^ Senators Pearce and Kennedy were
requested to vote for the recognition of the Confederacy
by the United States Government, and to present to the
United States Senate for record the solemn protest of
the Legislature of Maryland " against the manifold usurpa-
tions and oppressions of the Federal Government."
An unsuccessful struggle was again carried on to secure
an adjournment sine die, but it was decided that the Legis-
lature should reconvene on July 30. On June 25, the
Legislature adjourned after a session even more nearly
devoid of positive legislation than the ])rcvious one. Some
slight comfort was, however, declared (o l)c derived from
the thought that Congress, which would shortly convene,
might be able to restore peace."
■'Document J of Senate, 1861 ; Docuinenl K of Senate, 1861.
" Congress met on July 4, 1861.
611] Rupture bctzveen Hicks and the Legislature. 107
Whatever hopes were entertained that Congress on as-
sembling would secure a cessation of hostilities were
shattered by the time the Maryland Legislature met on
July 30, for the last of its memorable sessions. The
energies of the United States Government were being
exercised in the promotion of plans for the vigorous prose-
cution of the war. Baltimore had passed almost entirely
under the management of the Federal authorities by the
arrest of the police commissioners and Marshal Kane, and
by the subsequent placing of the internal government of the
city under the actual control, or at least careful surveillance.
of the officers of the United States troops stationed there.^"
Memorials from the Police Commissioners under arrest,
and from Mayor Brown and the City Council of Baltimore,
were presented to the Legislature. Thereupon a joint
committee prepared a long report, which was adopted by
both houses by large majorities. The resolutions declared
that the Government had not proved that the commission-
ers and Marshal Kane had attempted any armed opposition
to the United States Government, and that neither Federal
or state authorities had a right to interfere with the organs
of the other as long as restricted to their peculiar fields.
Some of these persons under arrest were not released until
November 27, 1862; and then without ever having been
tried, or having a formal presentment of an indictment
brought against them. Lincoln, when called upon by the
House of Representatives for a statement of the charges
against the commissioners, declared that it was " incom-
patible with the public interest at this time to furnish the
information called for by the resolution." '' Indeed it was
only after much heated discussion that the L^nited States
Senate consented to the printing on the Congressional
records of the resolutions of the Maryland Legislature.
No positive incriminating evidence was found against the
'" Police Commissioners were arrested on July i, and Marshal
Kane on June 27. "War of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 631.
108 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [612
police commissioners. However, the impression prevailed
at Washington that the city authorities, only because of
threats of force by the Federal administration, had con-
sented to the unobstructed passage of troops through the
streets to Washington, and if for any reason the United
States soldiers should be withdrawn from the city, or very
much lessened in numbers, the city would take advantage
of the opportunity to cripple communication with the
North, and to place Washington in jeopardy. The exist-
ence of an unfriendly party in power in the city which in a
measure controlled Washington was believed to be a stand-
ing menace. Scott was of the opinion that drastic measures
were necessary, and that " the blow should be early struck
to carry consternation." Thereupon the order for the arrest
of Marshal Kane and the police commissioners resulted.'"
Arrests were made freely, searches of both public and
private property were conducted in a vigorous manner,
which was believed by many to be needlessly vexatious.
In a short time the administration of the city was almost
entirely under the control of the provost-marshal, and
military rule in many places in the state was exercised.**
The members of the Legislature on reassembling, July
30, realized that any thought of opposition by them to the
Federal administration was an idle one. The advocates of
an immediate adjournment seemed to have been in a ma-
jority as soon as the session began; and but for the delay
caused by the consideration of the memorials in regard
to the arrest of Kane and the police commissioners, and
the resolutions which were framed and adopted in protest
against the action of the Federal Administration, tlie ses-
sion would have been a very brief one indeed." As it was,
at the end of a week an adjournment took place. The
"War of Rebellion, series i, volume ii, 138-156.
"The official records of the "War of Rebellion" throw much
fresh light upon the subject of the arrests in Maryland. See
especially series i, volume ii; series ii, volume i.
"Senate Documents of 1861. Document M.
613] Rupture hctzi'ccn Hicks and the Legislature. 109
spirit of hostility to the Federal administration was pre-
served in an intensified degree to the end. As an instance
of this, the Senate refused to send to the House resolu-
tions passed by the former on June 7, which provided
for the displaying of the United States flag during the ses-
sion upon the temporary state-house.^' The previous Con-
gress at the close of its session had made a convulsive
clutch at compromise by passing a proposed constitutional
amendment, which provided that slavery should not be
interfered with nor abolished in the slave states by the
United States Government. The House of Delegates
voted favorably upon the measure on April 30. The Senate
had never taken definite action in the matter, and now
refused to order a search to be made in the official papers
of the Senate for a copy of the proposed amendment.'^
Hicks no longer affected to be on even formal relations
of amity with the Legislature, for during the short session
which was held no intercourse between the two branches
of government took place.
^ July 31, Journal of Senate, 278. ^'^ Journal of Senate, 279.
CHAPTER X.
SUPPRESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE.
The Legislature was to have reassembled on September
17, but just before that date many of the members of that
body who were unfriendly to the P>deral Administration
were arrested, and the remainder not being able to obtain
a quorum, made no formal attempts to organize. This
suppression of the Maryland Legislature by Federal au-
thority had long been considered before it was carried out.
Before the Legislature had met for the first time on April
26, the situation in Maryland had been considered by the
cabinet.' Divergences of opinion existed as to the proper
course to be followed. Chase was especially urgent in
advising that the Government should prevent any hostile
action by the Maryland Legislature by preventing its
assembling. Lincoln decided not to interfere with the
Legislature until it should take some direct stand against
the L'nion; because in the first place, he held, the United
States Government was not justified in arresting the mem-
bers or in preventing them from assembling, since they
had done nothing of a hostile nature; and, second, if
arrested, they could not be held permanently, and upon
release they would take such action as they desired."
However, Scott was instructed by Lincoln to watch the
Legislature carefully and to be ready to check any move-
ment against the United States Government.
The question of breaking up the Legislature was fre-
quently agitated in administration circles during the spring
' Nicolay and Hay: Abraham Lincoln, vohimc iv, 166.
'Letter of Lincoln to Scntt. Nicolay and Hay: Works of Lin-
coln, vol. ii, 38
615] Suppression of the Legislature. Ill
and summer of 1861. The result of the Battle of Bull Run
gave rise to apprehensions in Washington that the Legis-
lature would seize the opportunity to take more advanced
steps in opposition to the United States Government.''
Though the administration was in a feverish anxiety to
protect Washington by collecting and massing there all
available troops, yet it was not deemed advisable to weaken
the garrison at Baltimore. But by the time the Legislature
had reconvened, on July 30, the administration had recov-
ered from its shock and the bands upon Maryland were
more tightly drawn than ever. Many exciting rumors
were afloat after the battle of Bull Run. One of these,
which acquired some credence, was that Johnston's move-
ment northward after the battle was to cooperate with the
Maryland Legislature, which had passed an ordinance of
secession in secret session at the previous sitting." Hicks
even wrote to Cameron advising him to arm the " Union "
men in the state, and so attempt to check the " secession-
ists," who had taken fresh courage from the defeat of the
Federal army.°
On September 11, McClellan suggested to Cameron that
prominent anti-Administration men in Maryland, including
several members of the Legislature, be arrested." Cam-
eron immediately issued orders for the arrest of all the
members of the Legislature; or as large a number as would
be necessary to insure the failure to pass an ordinance of
secession; for he claimed rumor stated that an effort
Vv'ould soon be made to carry Maryland out of the Union."
Only a small number of the members of the Legislature
appeared in Frederick, and these were mainly of the
"Union party"; and therefore the arrests were made in
'Letter of Scott to McClellan, July 21, 1861. War of Rebellion,
series i, vol. ii, 749. Dix replaced Banks in command on July 23.
* Referred to by a correspondent in a letter to Hicks, etc.
° War of Rebellion, series iii, vol. i, 463.
" War of Rebellion, series i, vol. v, 193.
' War of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 678.
ir^ Goz'crnor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [616
various places, especially in Baltimore.' During' the week
following September ii, the men on the proscribed list
were gradually placed under confinement, and then sent
North for imprisonment." Petitions and letters imme-
diately began to pour in upon the Federal Administration
urging the release of the prisoners. As a rule those who
wore held to be but slightly dangerous because of their
inferiority of influence or ability, or were less pronounced
in their opposition to the United States Government, were
soon given an opportunity of being- released upon taking
the oath of allegiance. General Dix, indeed, was opposed
to releasing any of the prisoners until after the November
elections. A number, however, refused to take advantage
of the offer, since such an action on their part would seem
to admit the legality of their arrest ;'" while of course some
were not willing to take the oath of allegiance under any
circumstances. On November 26, 1862, an order was
issued by the United States Government for the uncondi-
tional release of Maryland " state prisoners." On the
following day those still in confinement at Fort Warren,
Boston Harbor, were set free."
So ended in this informal manner the exciting sessions
• War of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 684. Letter of General
Banks to R. B. Marcy, Chief of Staff.
* General Banks liad planned to carry out the instructions in an
imposing manner. OfTicers of the United States army were to
appear at the same time before both houses of the Legislature
while in session and to order the arrest of the members in their
seats. The failure of the Legislature to convene necessitated a
less dramatic, though as effectual, method of procedure. Twenty-
nine members of the Legislature were arrested at this time. Be-
sides these, one. Senator McKaig, of Allegany county, had been
arrested before and then released on parole. Ross Winans had
also been arrested on May 14 and released. A number of the
members of the Legislature had left the state. As for instance.
Senator Yellott, of Baltimore, had gone to Virginia, and Delegate
Brune, also of Baltimore, had left for Canada. War of Rebellion,
series ii, vol. i, 667-679, 681.
"War of Rebellion, series ii. vol. i. 740-748.
" War of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 748.
617] Suppression of the Legislature. 113
of the Legislature of 1861, often known as the " Rebel
Legislature." Whatever may have been the desires of
some of the members of the Legislature, or even of the
majority of them, certainly that body had made no direct
efforts to break away from the Union. Indeed it had
declared its inability to pass an ordinance of secession, and
also had eventually decided not to call a state convention
to determine whether or not the people of the state wished
a separation from the Federal Union. However, the Leg-
islature by resolutions expressed repeatedly a desire for
the recognition of the Southern Confederacy, and did not
hesitate to use very strong language in condemning the
policy of the Administration, both as applied to Maryland
and to the states adopting secession. The Legislature had
been regarded by the Federal administration and by the
members of the radical wing of the Union party with min-
gled feelings of apprehension and contempt. The opinion
was held by both Lincoln and Davis that the Legislature
of Maryland desired an opportunity to take steps looking
towards placing Maryland in direct alliance or union with
the Confederacy. Lincoln was ready by force of arms to
check any decided movement against the Union by the
Legislature, and this the latter realized. There can be no
doubt that a majority of the members of the Maryland
Legislature desired to see that body take a more advanced
position of friendliness to the Confederacy than was really
done; yet it is by no means certain that the larger part of
those members just mentioned wished to see the state
break away from the Union. A number of the leaders of
the pro-southern party in both houses repeatedly declared
that no such intention was entertained by them. However,
a number certainly desired immediate secession, while
others looked forward to separation in the future.
As far as positive legislation is concerned, the series of
the stormy sessions of 1861 were almost entirely devoid of
result. The Legislature could not do what it wanted to,
and would not do what it could, hence the record was
42
114 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [618
practically barren. The numerous resolutions passed ex-
press most eloquently a feeling of protest against coercion
by the United States Government, and against the enor-
mous development of the authority of the latter, resulting
from a vigorous application of principles of " war " and
" implied powers." Whatever may be the correct way of
regarding these resolutions, whether as treasonable in
opposing the course of the Federal Administration and in
expressing sympathy for its opponents, or as patriotic in
insisting upon a so-claimed rigid adherence to the Con-
stitutions of Maryland and of the United States, the lucid-
ity as well as the boldness — approaching indeed to rashness
— with which they are expressed, are alike noteworthy.
The arrests which had been made, the suspension of
some of the newspapers and the establishment of a real,
if not nominal, censorship over the remainder, and the
breaking up of the Legislature by order of Lincoln, nearly
completed the placing of Maryland under the direct control
of the Federal Administration.'^ Hicks gave an unqualified
endorsement of the action of the administration in this
matter/* and advised Banks " shortly afterwards to be
" William Price wrote on September 25, 1861, to Reverdy John-
son, that the " rebel sentiment was cowed." War of Rebellion,
series ii, vol. i, 599.
" Hicks had been very desirous of seeing the Legislature either
broken up or its powers destroyed. As an instance, in July, 1861,
he wrote to Reverdy Johnson asking him if the adjournment from
time to time of the Legislature was not illegal, and consequently
its acts passed at all except the first session void. Reverdy John-
son in an elaborate opinion held that the Legislature in both cases
acted within its prerogatives. Correspondence and opinion is in
manuscript.
" State of Maryland, Executive Chamber.
Maj. Gen. N. P. Banks. Annapolis. Sept. 20.
Dear Sir: — We have some of the product of your order here in
the persons of some eight or ten members of the State Legislature
soon, I learn, to depart for healthy quarters. We see the good
fruit already produced by the arrests. We can no longer mince
matters with these desperate people. I concur in all you have done.
With great respect, your obedient servant,
TIIOS. H. HICKS.
War of Rebellion, scries ii, vol. i, p. 685.
619] Suppression of the Legislature. 115
very cautious in recommending the release of the members
of the Legislature under arrest.'° He subsequently wrote
to Seward to the same effect.'*
On February 28, 1863, in his first formal speech in the
United States Senate, Hicks took occasion to commend
emphatically the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
in Maryland in 1861, and the arrests which resulted. He
declared that the only criticism he would pass upon
the United States Government in this matter was " that
some of the rascals had been let go." " He said he was
willing to have exonerated Lincoln if he had hanged
" forty of them." This assertion called forth a sarcastic
reflection from a fellow-senator that Hicks, because of the
sentiments expressed by him in the well-known " Webster
Letter," would undoubtedly have been assigned a front
seat in the ranks of the " illustrious forty."
During the latter part of 1861, Hicks was very active in
affording assistance to the Federal Administration. He
was consulted at times by military commanders in Mary-
land in regard to the measures adopted for crushing out
opposition in the state. His correspondence shows him to
have been engaged, as early as August, in planning for,
and ordering in some cases, the arrests of persons sus-
pected of being engaged in affording assistance to the
Confederacy." He was particularly urgent in advising
that the free communications of the latter with the Eastern
Shore should be cut off. This section of the state, because
of its comparative isolation, was at first but little under the
supervision and control of the United States Government.
" Letter of Hicks to Banks, October 2, 1861. War of Rebellion,
series ii, vol. i, 693.
" Letter of Hicks to Seward. War of Rebellion, series ii, vol.
i, 704.
" Congressional Globe, 1862-63. Part ii, p. 1373.
" Letter of Hicks to Cameron, August 17, 1861. War of the
Rebellion, series i, vol. Ii, part i, 450. Letter of Hicks to Mc-
Clellan, August 26, 1861. War of Rebellion, series i, vol. ii, part i,
457. Correspondence with G. W. Howard, Jr. (MS.).
116 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [G20
and consequently afforded the agents of the Confederacy
good opportunities for transmitting men and suppHes to
the South. The numerous small rivers and inlets which
indent the coast are very suitable for the passing in and
out of small boats; while recruits for the Confederacy
could easily be sent down the peninsula to the Eastern
Shore of Virginia, and from there taken across the Chesa-
peake Bay." Hicks advised that soldiers be stationed at
various places on the Eastern Shore, and that arms be
supplied to the " Union " men there."" All military com-
panies in that section which were hostile in any way to the
United States Government were disarmed as speedily as
possible."
The strength of the " Union " vote had been seen in
special legislative elections in Washington and Cecil coun-
ties in May and in June; and more so in the special con-
gressional election in the state on June 13. On November
6, Augustus C. Bradford, a prominent adherent of the
" Union " party was chosen Governor by a large majority
over Benjamin Howard. The Federal Administration had
put forward great efforts to secure an endorsement at the
polls; and indeed the election was held directly under the
supervision of the United States Government. The judges
of the election were instructed by General Dix " to satisfy
themselves as to the qualifications of the voters ... to put to
those who offer to poll such searching questions in regard
to residence and citizenship as to detect traitors and without
" Letter of Dix to McCIellan, October 7, 1861. War of Rebel-
lion, series i, vol. v, 614.
"Letter of Hicks to McCIellan, August 20, 1861, War of Rebel-
lion, series 11, 457. Dix to Hicks, August 20, 1861, War of Rebel-
lion, series i, vol. v, 572. Dix lo McCIellan, August 23, 1861, series
i, vol. V, 581. Hicks to Cameron, September 3, 1861, series iii,
vol. i. 480.
" Dix to Lieut. -Gen. Lockvvrood, Sept. 30, 1861, War of Re-
bellion, series i, vol. v, 609. Dix to Lieut. -Gen. Lockwood,
October 9, War of Rebellion, series i, vol. v, 616. Dix to Lieut. -
Gen. Lockwood, October 14, War of Rebellion, scries i, vol. v,
620.
621] Suppression of the Legislature. 117
any violation of the constitution or laws of Maryland to
prevent the pollution of the ballot boxes by their votes." "
As a result, besides those persons who sought every oppor-
tunity to assist the Confederacy, there were many others
who had never allied themselves with this cause, but who,
as a result of the general feverishness of the times and the
personal animosities thereby engendered, were prevented
from voting. Likewise, the number of persons who had
fled from the state to enter the Confederate service was
quite large by this time.^' Consequently the election of
November 6, i86i, cannot be regarded as even an approxi-
mately accurate expression of public sentiment in Mary-
land. Yet the measures taken by the United States Gov-
ernment, though severe, were not unusually harsh in com-
parison with those adopted by ruling powers elsewhere in
times of intense internal convulsions. The outcome of the
elections in Maryland gave such a general feeling of relief
to the Federal Administration, that the opinion grew up
that some of the closeness with which the state was
watched and held could be loosened. Lincoln even drafted
a proclamation — never issued, however — which stated
such views. ^* Reverdy Johnson and other prominent
Union men advocated a similar policy on the ground that
circumstances would permit such a relaxation, and that
a course of this nature would do much to overcome the
feeling of indignation and hostility to the United States
Government which was widely prevalent throughout the
state.'"
Maryland had been compelled to cooperate with the
United States Government by force of arms. Whatever
" War of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 609.
^ By the authority of the Confederate Secretary of War, a
recruiting station had been set up in Baltimore before March 16,
1861. War of Rebellion, series i, vol. i, 276.
'* Proclamation of Lincoln was found among his state papers.
War of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 617.
""" Letter of Reverdy Johnson to Seward, March 12, 1861. War
of Rebellion, series ii, vol. i, 704.
118 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [622
may have been the incHnation of the majority of the people
in the state, certainly nearly all the officials, Hicks being
the most conspicuous exception, had been avowedly out
of sympathy with Lincoln's course. But now, as a result
of the elections, the organs of the state government were
placed under the control of men who held contrary views.
Hicks looked upon the result as a vindication of his own
course, yet he had a feeling that he had not been treated
altogether rightly by Lincoln and his advisers. The Admin-
istration could not entirely forget that when its perils were
greatest, Hicks had refused to come to its assistance, and
had almost joined in with those who were seeking openly
the success of the Confederacy. Subsequently he had
shown his friendship for the Administration in a marked
way, but the latter had never taken him entirely into con-
fidence in regard to the plans for repression in Mary-
land.^ Hicks felt himself slighted, but protested that his
devotion to the cause of the Union was not thereby les-
sened in the slightest.^'
** However, the military commanders in the state had frequently
consulted with Hicks in regard to the details connected with the
enforcement of the orders of Lincoln and the War Department.
" Letters of Hicks to Seward, November 12, 1861. War of
Rebellion, series ii, vol. ii, 704.
CHAPTER XL
THE LEGISLATURE OF 1861-2.
As soon as the result of the election showed that the
incoming Legislature would be controlled by the party
which was favorable to the Federal Administration, Hicks
decided to summon that body in special session to take
steps which would pledge unequivocally Maryland's adher-
ence to the Union. The call was issued on November 16,
and on December 3, the Legislature met in Annapolis.
Hicks' message at the opening of the session was de-
voted largely to an attempt at justification of his policy
during the preceding twelve months. He endeavored
to explain the vacillation in his course on April 19, and
subsequently, on the ground that no other course had
been possible; since, he claimed, any attempt at open re-
sistance on his part would have led to the adoption of
violent measures by the secessionists. The dominant
party in the preceding Legislature was freely character-
ized as a band of " traitors," and the forcible breaking up
of the body by the United States Government was en-
dorsed. In this message, as in his previous ofificial utter-
ances, Hicks insisted that not only was his course inher-
ently right, but that it had always been approved of by a
majority of the people of the state.
He even went so far as to say that he would have called
a sovereign convention in the midst of the agitation, and
thereby given an opportunity to the people to have ex-
pressed their attachment to the Union, if he had possessed
the authority to have done so. All he could have done
would have been to have summoned the Legislature, and
to have recommended to it, the calling of a convention.
120 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [63-i
But he declared that he could not trust that body, and
" was sure that through some juggle Maryland would be
forced to secede." He held that now was the time to
counteract, as far as was possible, the work of the pre-
ceding Legislature, and to show Maryland's devotion to
the Union. He urged that the equipment of the soldiers
called for in Maryland's quota, be prepared for amply, and
also that the portion of the direct taxes levied by the
United States Government be paid promptly.^
It is not advisable for the purposes of this paper to fol-
low in detail, or even roughly, the proceedings of this
assembly. In general it may be said that this Legislature
endeavored to undo, as far as possible, all that the pre-
ceding one had done in opposition to the Federal Admin-
istration. The measures which had been adopted exon-
erating from blame the authorities of Baltimore, on and
immediately after April 19, were repealed,' and $7000
was appropriated for the families of those members of the
Sixth Massachusetts which were killed or disabled in Bal-
timore at that time.' Laws which made valid the quali-
fications of certain officers in the state militia were re-
pealed.* The seat of Coleman Yellott, who had been one
of the leaders in the Senate of the radical pro-southern
party and who was then in the South, was declared vacant.
The Legislature insisted most strenuously that the war
was being urged to restore the Union, and not to interfere
with slavery. The proposed constitutional amendment,
which during the previous session had passed the House
of Delegates only, was ratified. Resolutions which declared
devotion to the Union and confidence in Lincoln passed
both houses." The House of Delegates, by an almost
unanimous vote disagreed with the assertion Jeflferson
Davis made in a speech in Richmond on February 22.
' House Documents of 1861-62, Document A.
* Laws of 1861-62, Article XIII. Passed January 4. 1862.
' Laws of 1861-62, Article XCIV. Passed March 5, 1862.
* Passed March 7. 1862. " December 19. 1861.
625] The Legislature of 1861-2. 121
He had said: "Maryland already united to us by hal-
lowed ties and material interests, will when able to speak
with an unstifled voice, unite her destiny with the
South," " The same body voted an expression of thanks
to Wilkes for capturing- the " Rebel Commissioners,
Mason and Slidell." An opponent of the resolution
offered an amendment providing for the sending of a
copy of the resolutions to " Her Majesty the Queen of
England," but the House ignored the suggestion and the
sarcasm contained therein/ A very stringent law for the
punishment of treason was passed, and arrangements were
made to pay the quota of Maryland for the direct tax
called for by the United States Government. On March
5, Reverdy Johnson was selected by the Senate and House
of Delegates, of which latter body he was a member, as
United States Senator for the term beginning March 4,
1863, to succeed Anthony Kennedy. The latter was in-
deed not a candidate for reelection, and indeed his con-
servatism and opposition to the doctrine of " implied pow-
ers," as interpreted by Lincoln, had made him distasteful
to the party in power in Maryland. The Legislature
adjourned on December 24 to reassemble for the regular
session on the first of January. Thus was ended the fourth
sitting of the legislative bodies in Maryland in special
session during the year of 1861.
Hicks' message to the Legislature on January i, con-
gratulates the Legislature upon the work recently done
by that body in special session, but contains little of interest
on national affairs, and is concerned mainly with questions
of finance and public improvements. Just one week later
his term as Governor terminated, and Augustus Bradford
was installed in his place.
The closing days of Hicks' term must have been a
' February 26. Introduced by Reverdy Johnson. Journal of
House of Delegates, 1861-62, 586.
' December 13, 1861, Journal of the House of Delegates, 54.
122 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [626
grateful change after the unrest and turmoil which had
characterized the years during which he had been Gov-
ernor. Besides the bitter hatred and reproach which a
considerable proportion of his constituents had shown
toward him, he had been engaged in a continual struggle
with the Legislature. However, the Legislature which had
just come into existence entertained for him the friend-
liest of feelings, and harmony between the two depart-
ments of government was restored after a breach of two
years. On the day that his term as Governor expired,
the House of Delegates passed resolutions thanking him
in its name and the name of the people of Maryland for
the " way he had met this solemn crisis in our national
afifairs," and declaring that he had kept Maryland in the
Union. The Senate promptly concurred in the resolutions.
On January 8, 1862, Hicks retired to private life. He
had left his position of authority in Maryland with the
good wishes of Lincoln and the " Union " people generally
throughout the country. Various proposals were brought
forward to reward him for his services to the Union in
the trying days of '60 and '61. Among these was a sugges-
tion by the New York Tribune that Hicks be appointed
Secretary of the Navy to succeed Wells, who was believed
to be on the eve of resigning.' It had long been rumored
that Hicks would be appointed commander of one of the
military divisions into which Maryland had been divided.*
During the summer of 1862, Lincoln ofifered to him the
position of Brigadier-General; and on his acceptance, July
26, he was directed by the Secretary of War to report to
Governor Bradford.'" But Hicks was in bad health at the
time and never really entered upon the duties of tlie
position.
During the summer of 1862 an incident occurred which
" Letter from G. W. Jefferson to Hicks, January 17, 1862 (MS.).
• Letter from G. W. Jefferson to Hicks, January 17. 1862 (MS.).
Letter from G. W. Howard, Jr., to Hicks, February 26, 1862 (MS.).
" Letfcr from Hicks to Governor Bradford, July 26, 1862 (MS.).
627] The Legislature of 1861-2. 123
attracted considerable attention. Judge Carmichael, of
Queen Anne's county, while sitting on the bench was
arrested by officers of the United States army after a vig-
orous attempt at resistance on his part. Carmichael had
been very outspoken in his opposition to the suspension
of habeas corpus and other such stringent measures which
the Federal administration had adopted in dealing with
the people of the State of Maryland. By virtue of his
official capacity, he had at numerous times thwarted the
carrying out of the plans of the military departments in
regard to the measures taken against persons charged
with being secessionists. Just at this time the President
of the State Senate, H. H. Goldsborough, a strong Union
adherent, was about to be tried before Carmichael, but the
Federal Administration interfered and arrested the latter
on the ground that he was largely responsible for keeping
alive on the Eastern Shore the hostile feelings towards the
United States Government."
The circumstances under which the arrest was made
tended to increase the feeling of discontent and indigna-
tion of those who were opposed to the policy of the Federal
Administration. Much dissatisfaction was noticeable even
among those who were considered as pronounced Union
adherents; a feeling resulting from the rigid and arbitrary
rule of the local military forces." Indeed the advanced
measures which were adopted in dealing with the State of
Maryland served to accentuate the bitterness of the south-
ern sympathizers, and to fill with misgivings very many
adherents of the " Union party." These continually urged
the Administration to restrain its hand and not to subject
the " loyal people of Maryland " to such extreme tests of
their devotion to the Union by demanding acquiescence
and even cooperation in the furtherance of plans which
were so repugnant to their ideas of personal liberty.
"War of the Rebellion, series ii, vol. iv, 63.
" H. H. Goldsborough, J. Crisfieid and other prominent persons
expressed themselves quite strongly on this point in their private
correspondence.
124 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [628
Hicks, though he was now a firm supporter of Lincoln,
was, at this time, on the whole inclined to favor the con-
servative element in the " Union party." The radical
wing had as one of its leaders the brilliant orator, Henry
Winter Davis. The severe and apparently fatal illness of
Senator Pearce aroused considerable speculation as to his
probable successor. Hicks seems to have been agreed
upon generally as the logical candidate, if the vacancy
should occur. Consequently, upon the death of Senator
Pearce, Governor Bradford appointed Hicks, on December
27, 1862, to serve as United States Senator, and he took
his seat in the Senate on January 14, 1863. On the
whole the career of Hicks in this body was not particu-
larly prominent. He did not possess ability to attract
especial attention on the floor, and during the two years
in which he was in the Senate, he suffered so much from ill
health that slight opportunities were given of demonstrat-
ing whether he had the qualities which make a leader either
in the committees of the Senate, or in party councils and
caucuses.
CHAPTER XII.
HICKS IN THE SENATE.
On January 29, Hicks made his first formal address in
the Senate, in the course of which he reviewed his record
as Governor of Maryland, and attempted to explain the
inconsistencies of policy which were claimed to exist there.
The speech is interesting as showing how far Hicks'
views had changed during the past year on many of the
questions of the day. He expressed most emphatically
his endorsement of the policy of the Administration in
Maryland in regard to the suspension of habeas corpus,
the arrests which followed, and other measures deemed
advisable by the Federal Administration to keep the un-
friendly spirit in the state in check. His colleague from
Maryland, Senator Kennedy, took him severely to task
for these sentiments, and declared he could see in the policy
of the administration only the establishment of a despotism.
Kennedy inquired if Hicks approved of the suspension of
habeas corpus in 1861 when the entire oflficial machinery
of the state was in operation. Hicks' reply is somewhat
evasive. He declared, however, that he did not approve
of everything Lincoln had done, but on the whole he was
glad that the presidential election of i860 had resulted in
the election of Lincoln. Coercion of the seceded states he
believed was right, and if the safety of the Union demanded
such severe measures, " every rebel, North or South,"
should be put to death.
The radical nature of the remarks of Hicks, though find-
ing approval on the Republican side of the house, did not
fail to call forth from the Senators from the border states
criticisms and sarcastic allusions to some of Hicks' pri-
126 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [630
vate and official utterances in i860 and 1861. On the other
hand, Hicks hesitated considerably before following the
dominant party in the Senate in regard to slavery. He
had always spoken bitterly of abolitionists, and declared as
late as August, 1861, that while he was willing to do all
he could to assist the Administration in the prosecution of
tlie war, yet if then " the abolitionists don't let our negroes
alone, I will fight them.'" ' Hicks insisted that all ener-
gies should be put forward to restore the Union, and until
this was accomplished other problems should, as far as
possible, be laid aside. Therefore he was opposed to the
consideration of questions of gradual emancipation (involv-
ing compensation for the owners), in the border states,
declaring that such only served to divide the forces of the
Union, and to encourage useless dissensions when the
common welfare of the country demanded a united front
against secession.
The representatives from Maryland in Congress united
with those who were opposed to any interference with the
institution of slavery, but the cause proved to be a con-
stantly losing one. Two of the main reasons which oper-
ated in producing this efifect were that of the advocates of
slavery, many had become convinced that its existence
would prove to be an insurmountable bar to the restora-
tion of the Union; while very many indeed had been
disfranchised, and hence were powerless. Hicks belonged
to the former class, and declared that though the loss of
his slaves would ruin him, yet if the Union demanded the
sacrifice, he was willing to make it. The results of this
movement are to be found in the work of the Constitutional
Convention of 1864.
Hicks was promptly elected by the Maryland Legislature
on its assembling, on January 7, 1864, to fill out the rest
of the term of the late Senator Pearce, to which Governor
' Letter of Hicks to McCIellan, August 26, 1861. War of Rebel-
lion, series i, vol. ii. part i, 457.
631] Hicks in the Senate. 127
Bradford had appointed him in the recess of the Legisla-
ture." From this time on, feeble health prevented him
almost entirely from carrying on his official duties.
On June 13, 1864, Hicks made a speech in the Senate,
while sitting in his chair.' He expressed himself as being
heartily in favor of the reelection of Lincoln.* Shortly
afterwards he declared vehemently that he did not know
which would be the greatest evil, the success of ihe Con-
federacy or the return to power of the Democratic party .^
Though Hicks had eventually favored the abolition of
slavery in Maryland and had voted ° for the constitution
providing for this, yet he was opposed to any attempts to
place the freedman on a plane with his former owner. He
was not in favor of the proposed act for a " Freedman's
Bureau," claiming that since the negro was free, it was not
advisable to place him in an actual, if disguised, form of
servitude by putting him under the supervision of so-called
" boards of improvement."
On July 2, Hicks made his last remarks on the floor of
the United States Senate. During the following autumn
and winter petitions were gotten up to urge Lincoln to
appoint Hicks collector of customs at Baltimore, but all
such plans were finally interrupted by his death on Feb-
ruary 13, 1865, at the Metropolitan Hotel in Washington.
He had long been in bad health, and an attack of paralysis
soon proved fatal. The body lay in state, and the funeral
" Elected on joint ballot on January 14, 1864. Vote stood:
Hicks, 67; Samuel Hambleton, 18; T. A. Spence, 2; blanks, 4.
Journal of Senate of 1864, p. 10.
" One of his legs had recently been amputated.
' Congressional Globe, 1863-64, part iv, 2970.
'January 25, 1864. Congressional Globe, 1863-64. part iv, 3263.
Senator Saulsbury, of Delaware, retorted that the Democratic party
would not have him, but Hicks expressed himself as being by no
means convinced of this.
' As an instance of the change which came about in his views,
Hicks had declared in a letter written on April 3, i860: "When
it comes to vote a Democrat or Abolition [ticket], I am dis-
franchised." (MS.)
128 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [633
oration was delivered in the Senate, the President of the
United States and his cabinet, the Diplomatic Corps, mem-
bers of Congress, officers of the Army and Navy, the Gov-
ernor of Maryland, members of the City Council of Balti-
more, attending. Hicks was buried in the Congressional
burying ground, but was taken up and on March 3 sent to
Baltimore. A committee from the City Council of that city
met the body on its arrival, conveyed it to the Maryland
Institute, where it again lay in state, and finally accom-
panied it to Dorchester, where the interment took place in
a cemetery in Cambridge.
CONCLUSION.
" I am content to await the just verdict of my fellow-
citizens when peace and sober counsels, experience and
calm reason shall enable them to approve without par-
tiality and to condemn without prejudice." '
Such was the judgment Hicks asked of posterity. Prob-
ably no man in public life in Maryland has ever aroused
such different feelings among his constituents. By some
he was regarded as a villain and a traitor who had sold his
state to Lincoln. During the stormy days from i860 to
1865 his opponents sought every opportunity to denounce
him. Even this bitterness of feeling did not stop with his
death, and still is expressed at times by some of the sur-
vivors of that period. On the other hand, some will as-
cribe to him virtues and abilities of a transcendent char-
acter. Of course there have been many opinions held
concerning Hicks which are not so radical as these, but on
the whole he has never been rated properly.
He was not a great man — certainly not in the sense in
which the term is generally used. But for the uniqueness
of the position in which he was placed in i860, there is
little doubt, but that his name would be preserved simply
as that of a man who was once Governor of Maryland,
and while holding this office exhibited abilities of only a
very moderate character. Near the close of his term as
Governor strange and perplexing problems were forced
upon him for solution. He was swept along by circum-
stances, and his views changed with these. Inconsistencies
occurred in his course, yet it cannot be said that he at any
* Message of Hicks to the Legislature. Documents of House of
Delegates of 1861-62, Document A.
43
130 Governor Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. [634
one time went back upon the main tenet of his beUef, that
is, that the Union should be preserved if possible. At any
rate he himself would take no steps to aid in carrying
Maryland into secession. Apparently, he gave in on April
19, and called the Legislature, but he declared afterwards
that he had to yield a little then or lose everything.
At the beginning of the great contest. Hicks realized
that the war about to break out would be frightful in its
destruction of life and property. He knew little of the
constitutional points involved in questions of secession, but
he was convinced that the attempt on the part of Maryland
to claim the right to separate from the Union would turn
the state into an enormous battlefield. He was possessed
with the idea which was so prevalent in other border
states, especially in Kentucky, that is, that a state could
remain in the Union and yet take no part in the war.
When such a course was found to be impossible, and he
was forced to choose between allying himself actively with
the United States Government or the Confederacy, he
chose eventually the former. His earlier course was char-
acterized in turn by assumptions of neutrality, by feeble
attempts at resistance, mild protests, profifers of assistance
to the United States Government indirectly offered, a
qualified support of the administration. Near the close of
his career he was entirely in sympathy with all the plans of
the Federal administration. Though the records of hun-
dreds of public meetings which were held throughout the
state at this period have been investigated, together with
other data, yet it is impossible to come to any satisfactory
conclusions as to the public sentiment in Maryland. In
the first place, this sentiment was in a more or less chaotic
condition and tended to change with bewildering rapidity.
Strong pressure was brought to bear upon Hicks to call
a session of the Legislature, yet his refusal to do so se-
cured for him the complete endorsement of a very large
number of his constituents. The course which would have
been pursued by the Legislature, if it had been in session,
635] Conclusion. 131
is, of course, only a field of speculation. It is, however,
safe to say that Maryland would not have passed an act
of secession as long- as Virginia remained in the Union.
This fact is clearly established from the records of the time ;
and, indeed, the geographical position of Maryland ren-
dered such a course imperative. But in the great revulsion
of feeling, which was especially pronounced in the border
slave states, upon the outbreak of hostilities and the call for
volunteers by Lincoln, it is possible that Maryland, like
Virginia, would have been swept into secession. It is here
that a definite statement can be made as to the influence of
Hicks on Maryland's policy at this time. By his persistent
refusal before April 19, to summon the Legislature in
special session, he prevented the possibility of that body
taking any steps looking towards secession. When the
Legislature did meet, public opinion had changed in a
measure; and, moreover, Maryland had been rendered
largely helpless by the course of the Federal adminis-
tration.
INDEX TO THE NINETEENTH VOLUME
OF THE
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES
IN
HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE.
Acquisition of Pacific Islands;
evolution of the American pol-
icy as to, 12, 70, 119, 126, 127-8,
130, 137, 141, 151; guano is-
lands, 69.
Aleutian Islands, 59, 70.
Alliance, American policy as to,
52, 68; Anglo-American, pro-
posed, 90, 95, 97, 98. 100.
American maritime enterprise,
early, 13.
American party [see Know Noth-
ing party].
American Social Economics, 186.
Andros, Sir Edmund, Governor
of Virginia, 490; opposed the
college, 490; suspends Blair,
490; charges against, 491; trial,
491-2.
Anglo-American interests in the
Far East, cooperation, 14, 98,
104, 107; proposed alliance [see
" Alliance "].
Arbitration, for labor difficulties,
264 et seq. ; boards of, 264-8.
Astoria, 30.
B
Bacon, Nathaniel, 280, 293.
Baltimore City, excitement in,
556, April 19th, 556-9; election,
568; commercial prostration,
582; occupied by Federal troops,
594-7, 611; arsenal in, 602; ar-
rests of members of legislature
in, 616.
Banks, attack on, in Maryland
convention, 428.
Behring Sea, 33, 58.
Berkeley, Sir William, 471, 472.
Blair, Commissary James; early
life, 455; at Henrico parish, 456;
at Jamestown, 456; elected to
Bruton parish, 457; sermons,
459; commissary, 460; efforts
for clergy, 463-7; duties, 464;
influence of, 469; relation to
William and Mary College, 470-
488; and Professor Mayo Ing-
lis, 481-2; and governors of
Virginia, 489^501; member of
council of Virginia, 489; close
of life, 500-1; will, 501; inscrip-
tion on tomb, 501-2.
Bonin Islands, 61, et seq.; Per-
ry's policy for a colony on, 63;
proposition to take possession
of, 64; question of ownership.
Border states, 521, 540, 547; and
Peace Conference, 542.
Borneo, 74, 157.
Boyle, Hon. Robt., bequest for
Indian education at William
and Mary College, 473, 483-4.
485.
Bradford, Augustus, Governor of
Maryland, 355, 620, 625; on
election of 1863, 368-9; mes-
sage of 1864, 376.
134
Index.
[638
Brown, George William, Mayor
of Baltimore City. 523; and
April 19th. 558, 560-1; views on
secession, 558; interview with
Lincoln, 562; communication to
the city council, 591; memorial
of, 611.
Bureaus of statistics of labor;
first organized, 187; state, 187-
9; of the United States, 188;
force and work, 190-1, 193; per-
sonnel of, 188; powers and du-
ties of, 190, 191-3; Kansas bu-
reau, 188-90; reports and pub-
lications, 192; system of work,
193-4-
Burgesses, first election of, 279.
Butler, General Benjamin, 563-4,
569, 594-
Byrd, Colonel, 498-9.
California, factory inspection in,
228.
Callahan, James Morton, Ameri-
can Relations in the Pacific and
the Far East, 1-177.
Carmichael, Judge, arrested by
Federal authorities, 627.
Carpet-baggers, 330.
Chandler, Julian A. C, The His-
tory of Suffrage in Virginia,
270-346.
China, earliest American trade in,
10, 12, 84; Major Shaw, first
American consul to, 14; early'
American voyages to, 21, 23;
restricted trade policy of, 85;
reformed methods of, after
" Opium War," 86; American
policy as to. 83, 99, loi, 104,
108, 109, no [see " Far East"];
American negotiations with, 87,
91, et seq., 94, 97, 102; treaties
with, 88, 105, 109; Taiping re-
bellion in, 91 et seq., 96; indi-
cations of change in, 156; and
the Russian policy, 159.
Chinese Diplomacy, 87, 92, 94,
102.
Clergy of Virginia, demoralized,
462-3. 466, 467, 468.
Coal mines, inspection of, 250.
College, William and Mary [see
William and Mary College].
Colonial establishments, distant
— feared by the Senate, 52; sug-
gested, 61; the Bonin Island
colony, 60 et seq.; favored by
Perry, 65, 67.
Compromise, the Spirit of, in
United States, 541 et seq. [see
Peace Conference].
Connecticut, factory inspection
in, 219.
" Conservative " Union party, in
Maryland, 379.
Constitution of Virginia. 1776,
286.
Constitutional Convention, of
Virginia in 1829-30, 300 et seq.;
plan adopted, 308-9; movement
for, in 1846, 315-6; of 1850, 317-
24, 515; of 1861, 360-4.. 376.-8;
of 1864, 326; convention of
1901, 343-6; of 1864 in Mary-
land, 382 et seq.; members,
382-6; parties in, 383; organiza-
tion, 387-8; interruptions. 389-
90; retaliatory resolutions. 393;
eligibility of members, 395; re-
ports of, 397-
Corea, 111-113; need of reforms
in, 112.
Crittenden, Senator, successor to
Clay. 512; letter to Hicks, 533.
Davis. Henry' Winter, vote of.
520, 521; not supported by
Hicks. 533. 552; of radical wing
of " Union party," 628.
Davis, Jefferson, reply to message
from Legislature of Maryland,
609; Richmond speech. 624.
Declaration of Rights, of Mary-
land Convention of 1864. 389,
394. 396. .398, 405. 408-411-
Delaware, factory inspection in,
227.
Democratic party in Maryland,
379, 385. 394, 402. 421; attitude
on constitution of 1864. 437-440;
strength in i860. 521; de-
nounced, 522; in legislature of
Maryland, 577.
639]
Index.
135
Democratic tendency in Virginia,
293, 306-7, 309, 317-24-
Deserters, 39. 40, 42, 48, 64.
Discovery, of islands by Ingra-
ham, 19; expeditions of, 24. 55,
District of Columbia, to revert to
Maryland, 513, 547.
Early, Gen. Jubal A., invasion of
Maryland, 390-1.
Eastern and Far Eastern ques-
tions, 155.
Eastern Shore, separation from
Maryland, 516.
Education, Maryland constitution
of 1864 provides a state system,
431:3-
Election, uniform time in Vir-
ginia, 312; of 1863 in Maryland,
364-75; irregularities on East-
ern Shore, 372-5; of 1864, 380.
Emancipation, policy of Lincoln,
355-7; movement in Maryland,
1862, 357-9; in campaign of
1864, 378; in convention of
1864, 398-405-
Employment Bureau, 193, 196-
210; classes of, 196; legislation
in regard to, 198-9; private,
196-8; free, 199; state bureaus,
200 et seq.; methods of, 202; re-
lation to strikes, 203; results
achieved, 205-8; prominent fea-
tures of, 208-9; joint action a
necessity, 210.
Expansion to California and Ore-
gon, effect on the American
policy in the Pacific, 76, 78, 89,
90.
Exploring Expeditions, U. S., 24,
50 et seq.
Factory inspection, 211; history
of development, 211 et seq.; in
Mass., 212-16; in N. J., 216; in
Ohio, 217; in N. Y., 218; in
Conn., 219; in Pa., 220-1; in
111., 221-2; in R. I., 222; in Me.,
222; in Ind., 223; in Mich., 224;
in Mo., 225; in Wis., 226; in
Minn., 227; Del., 227; Nebr.,
228; Washington, 228; Tenn.,
228; Cal., 228; W. Va., 229;
Kansas, 229.
Far East, earliest American ne-
gotiations for ports in, 11, 48;
increase of American concerns
in the, 91; Anglo-American in-
terests in, 14, 90; American op-
portunity and duty in, 12, iio,
159, 160, 162; and the Eastern
questions, 155, 156; recent
changes in, 155; Russian plans
as to, 159.
Fiji Islands, 24, 43, 45, 53, 55, 57,
69..
Foreign policy, 91 [see " China,"
" Japan," ". Samoa," and " Ha-
waii "].
Formosa, 66, 67; proposed occu-
pation of, 98, 99.
Fourteenth Amendment, 327-9.
Frederick, city of, Md., occupied
by Federal troops, 607.
Free Employment Bureaus, 199.
Freeholds, in Virginia, 282-3.
" Gazette," the, 294.
Goldsborough, Henry H., Presi-
dent of Convention of 1864,
387, 396.
Great Britain, American cooper-
ation with, 14, 98, 104, 107; pro-
posed alliance with, 90, 95, 97,
98, 100; and Russian rivalry in
Asia, 157.
" Gubernatorial Districts " in
Md., abolished, 417.
H
Hawaii [see " Sandwich Is-
lands"], Americanization of,
1 14-134; early policy of the U.
S. as to, 114, 117; development
of annexation policy, 1 19-123,
125, 126, 128, 130-31; American
treaties with, 40, 118, (123),
(124), 127; constitutional his-
tory notes, 131-34; present ter-
ritorial government, 168.
Hicks, Governor, of Md. and the
Civil War, 504 et seq.; sources
136
Index.
[640
of biography, 511; on calling
legislature, 513; struggle with
" Rebel Legislature," 513; early-
career, 515 et seq.; in state con-
vention of 1850, 515-17; on di-
vision of state of Md., 516-17;
Governor of Md., 518; relations
with Legislature of 1858, 519;
correspondence with southern
states, 520; policy of inaction,
526, 529, 532. 536, 553, 599; on
secession, 538; correspondence
with border states, 540-1; and
the Peace Conference, 543, 552;
change of position as to extra
session, 546; part in burning
railroad bridges, 560-62; rela-
tions with Federal administra-
tion, 547, 549, 554, 562, 564;
summons legislature, 566-8;
plots against, 573; criticism of
course of, 576-7; takes more
decided stand for Federal gov-
ernment, 592, 598-9, 608, 618,
619, 620; messages to legisla-
tive sessions of 1861-2, 623,
624, 625; appointed Brigadier-
General, 626; appointed to Sen-
ate, 628, 629-32; conclusion
upon course and character of,
633-5-
Illinois, Employment Bureau of,
201-4; factory inspection in,
221-2.
Indiana, factory inspection in,
223; Regulation of Sweating
System in, 245.
Indian education at William and
Mary College, 483-5.
Industrial Conciliation and Arbi-
tration, 264-9.
Inglis, Mayo, of grammar school,
480. 486; discord with James
Blair, 481-2.
Ingraham's voyage, 17; discovery
of islands, 19; trade, 20.
Inspection; of factories, first pub-
lished, 186; of Factories and
Workshops, 211-38; of Mines,
186, 250-63.
Inspectors; of Factories, 230-2,
238; of Mines, 257 et seq.
Intelligence Agencies, 196.
Internal Improvements of Md.,
425-7.
Intervention, suggested as to Ja-
pan, 77; as to China, 95.
Isolation policy, favored, 52, 138;
opposed, 90, 162.
Isthmian transit routes, need of,
40.
Japan, foreign policy of, 72 et
seq.; early American voyages
to, 73 et seq.; American deter-
mination to secure intercourse
with, 76; Perry's expedition to,
78 et seq.; negotiation of trea-
ties with, 81, 82, 84.
Jefferson, Thomas, 286, 293, 299,
305, 309-
Johnson, Reverdy, 621; chosen
Senator, 625.
Jones, Professor Hugh, descrip-
tion of William and Mary Col-
lege, 479.
K
Kane, Marshal George, letter to
Hicks, 548; objects to passage
of Federal troops, 570-1; arrest
of, 6ir, 612.
Kansas, factory inspection in,
229.
Know Nothing party', 518; elec-
tion of 1857, 518; tenets of, 519;
paper by Schmeckebier, 519;
plans in i860, 521; platform,
522; in extra legislative session
of 1861, 577.
Label, on tenement made goods,
243-
Labor laws, 236.
Legislature of Maryland, attitude
i860, 520-1; petitions for as-
sembling, 525 et seq.; refusal of
Hicks to summon, 533; calling
of an extra session, 566 et seq.;
as to place of meeting, 572-3;
at Frederick, 576 et seq.; reso-
lutions on secession, 578; on
defense of Baltimore, 579;
641]
Index.
137
"Safety Bill" in, 580-2; reso-
lutions on seizure of railroads,
etc., 583; on policy of Lincoln,
586-7; and a Southern Confed-
eracy, 588, 617; plan to oppose
Hicks, 598; rupture with Gov-
ernor Hicks, 601-13; suppres-
sion of, 614-22; arrest of mem-
bers by Federal authorities,
615; session of 1861-2, 623-28;
resolution on Davis' Richmond
speech, 624; endorses policy of
Hicks, 626.
Leigh, Benj. Watkins, on suf-
frage, 304, 307.
License, regulation of Sweating
Shops by, 240.
Lieutenant-Governor, office of,
created in Md., 417-8.
Lincoln, policy of emancipation,
355; on election in Md., 364,
367; election of, 523-4; inaugu-
ration of, and plots against,
544, 547, 548; dislike for in
Md., 551, 572; policy con-
demned by Legislature of Md.,
603; suspended the writ of
habeas corpus in Md., 605; and
the Baltimore police commis-
sioners, 611-2; military policy
as to Md., 614, 617.
Loo Choo Islands, proposed oc-
cupation of, 65, 78.
M
Madison Island, discovered by
Ingraham, 19; occupation by
Capt. Porter, 26; American in-
tervention in, 27; visited by the
Vincennes, 41.
Madison, James, 294, 301.
Maine, factory inspection in, 222.
Manhood Suffrage, steps to,
311-8.
Manila, 10, 44, 58.
Marshall, John, 301-2, 309.
Maryland, Regulation of Sweat-
ing System in, 245; relation to
South, 354; domestic revolution
in, 355-6; Constitution of 1864,
353-444; Declaration of Rights,
389, 394, 396, 398-411; suffrage,
409; rights in property, 410;
poll-tax, 410; test oath, 410-13;
education in, 411, 431-3; regis-
tration of voters, 412-4; oath
of office, 414-6; Gubernatorial
Districts abolished, 417;
changes in executive depart-
ment, 417, 418-9; legislative de-
partment of, 420-4; internal im-
provements in, 425-7; changes
in judiciary, 430; for amend-
ment of constitution of, 433-4;
ratification of constitution of,
434-444; as a border state, 512-3,
527, 532, 555; representatives of,
at the Peace Conference, 541,
543; secession views in, 543;
dislike for Lincoln in, 551; pas-
sage of Federal troops through,
563-5; as a "conquered prov-
ince," 583, 606, 610, 618; rela-
tions with Virginia, 427-8, 584-
6; change of attitude to Federal
Government after April i8th,
588-90, 600.
Mason, John Y., 319.
Massachusetts, board of arbitra-
tion in, 266; factory inspection
in, 212-216; 236-7; regulation of
Sweating System in, 239, 247,
249.
McCabe, John C, 458.
Michigan, factory inspection in,
224.
Mines, inspection of, 250-63; coal,
250; as to women and children
employed in, 251; hours of la-
bor in, 252; mining codes and
laws, 251-5; boards of examin-
ers of, 259; as to company
stores, 260, 261, 262.
Minnesota, factory inspection in,
227.
Missouri, Employment Bureau
of, 204, 206; factory inspection
in, 225.
Monroe, James, 297, 301, 304.
Monroe Doctrine, and the Pacific
Coast, 35; and policy in the Pa-
cific, 52; and the Far East, 90,
no; and Samoa, 138, 146.
Morrels' voyages and adventures,
43-5-
Motley, Daniel Esten, Life of
Commissary James Blair, 447-
506.
138
Index.
[642
Munford. William, 294.
Myers, William Starr, The Mary-
land Constitution of 1864, 347-
446.
N
Natives of islands, character of,
18, 19, 28, 44, 47, 53.
Naval and coaling stations, 66,
70, 77, 125, 137, 139, 150.
Navy, operations in the Pacific,
10, II, 25, 39-42, 47, 55, 59, 76,
79, 98, 107, III, 129, 130, 136,
143, 150; need of increase, 54,
59-
Nebraska, factory inspection in,
228.
Negro sufifrage, 329-337.
New Jersey, factory inspection in,
216; regulation of Sweating
System in, 245.
New York, arbitration for labor
difficulties in, 264, 267; Employ-
ment Bureau of, 207-8; factory
inspection in, 218-9; regulation
of Sweating System in, 242, 247,
249.
Nicholson, Governor, 457, 477,
482, 490, 492; relation to col-
lege, 492; and Commissary
Blair, 492-8; and the Burwell
love affair. 493-5; charges
against. 495-6; attitude of Vir-
ginia clergy toward. 497.
Norfolk charter, suffrage in, 284,
285.
Northwest coast, early commer-
cial enterprise between China
and, 13; Jefferson's interest in,
14, 30; the Columbia at Nootka,
16; conflicting national claims
on, 20, 31 [see "Pacific Coast"].
O
Ohio, Employment Bureau of,
200, 205, 209; factory inspection
in, 217; regulation of Sweating
System in, 244.
" Open Door," 66, 91, no, 160.
Ordinance and Constitution, 279.
Orient, unlocking the, 72 et seq.;
American duty in, 12, lio, 159,
160, 162.
Pacific, the; early European voy-
ages to, 9; early American voy-
ages to, 10; beginning of the
American navy in, 10, 11;
Wilkes' expedition to, 11, 55;
increase of American interests
in, 32; need of a larger navy
in, 54, 59; policy as to acquir-
ing islands in, 12, 70, 119, 126,
127-8, 130, 137, 141, 151; guano
islands of, 69.
Pacific coast, the; increase of
American interest on, 30; pro-
posed plan for settlement of,
32; desire to acquire ports on,
35; and the Monroe Doctrine.
35; acquisition of California, 36
[see "Northwest Coast"].
Patterson, Commander of Penn-
sylvania Department; delay in
cooperation with Butler, 596-7;
reply to Hicks, 607.
Peace Conference, 512; origin of,
541; delegates from Md. to, 541;
representatives at, 542; de-
nounced in Baltimore, 544.
Peel Island colony, 61 et seq.
Pennsylvania, factory inspection
in, 220-1; inspection of mines
in, 256; board of examiners for
mine inspector, 259; regulation
of Sweating System in. 243.
Philippines, lo, 56, 149-5S; and
American opportunity in the
Far East, no, 155-64; early
American interest in, 149; oc-
cupation, 151; cession by Spain,
152; American responsibility
and policy in, i5?-5, 163-4.
Pierpont, Francis H., 325-9; the
Pierpont government, 326-7.
" Poor whites," 324-5.
Private Employment Agencies,
196-7; condemned, 197-8.
Property qualification, 282.
Radcliffe, G. L., Governor Hicks
of Maryland and the Civil War,
504-635-
Randolph, John of Roanoke, 305.
309-
643]
Index.
139
Ratification of Maryland Consti-
tution of 1864, 434-44.
Reform movement in Virginia,
295-
Reports; of bureaus of statistics
of labor, 192; of factory inspec-
tors, 238.
Representation, reapportionment
of, in Virginia, 298; in con-
vention of 1829-30, 301; in 1841-
2, 313; in 1850, 316-7, 323-4; in
Maryland by constitution of
1864, 420-3.
Republican party, formation of,
521; and the American party,
522.
Rhode Island, factory inspection
in, 222.
Richmond, universal suffrage in,
321-2.
Russia, claims in the North Pa-
cific, 31, 33; American treaties
with, 34; settlements of early
American trade with, 22, 33;
and British rivalry in Asia, 157;
expansion policy of, 158.
" Safety Bill," 577; introduced by
Senator Yellott, 580; action of
legislature upon, 580-2, 590.
Samoa, 46, 55, 57; strategic posi-
tion of, 136; proposed Ameri-
can protection or annexation
of, 137, 140; internal troubles,
138, 140, 142, 145; treaty with,
139; international complications
in, 142, 147; tripartite arrange-
ment for, 140, 143; partition of,
148.
Sandwich Islands, early .American
vessels at, 16, 40, 41. 42, 43;
early traffic with, 17; Ingraham
at, 19, 21; native wars in 19; a
resort for traders and whalers,
22; and Astoria settlement, 31;
Russian designs in, 32; a depot
for supplies, 39; treaty with, 40;
importance to American inter-
ests, 40; difficulties of mission-
aries in, 39, 115; sources of dis-
pute in, 43 [see " Hawaii "].
Schenck, General, relation to
election of 1863 in Md., 371-5,
379-
Schmeckebier, Dr. L. F., the
Know Nothing party in Md.,
519-
Schofield, Gen. J. M., Military
Governor, 329.
Scott, General Winfield, corre-
spondence with Hicks, 548, to
increase military defense of
Washington, 549; order for oc-
cupation of Baltimore, 594, 596.
Sealing in the South Pacific, 22,
23- _
Secession in Virginia, 325 et seq.
Sixth Massachusetts, attack on in
Baltimore, 557-8; appropriation
of Md. for families of injured,
624.
Slavery, in Md., 356; status in
constitution of 1851, 358; in
convention of 1864, 387, 398-
405-
South America, west coast of;
American influence on, 10, 25,
34; agitated by the appearance
of the Columbia, 16.
Southern states, attitude of news-
papers of, towards Hicks, 529;
commissioners from, to Md.,
530, 537, 538, 539, S40, 553-
Spotswood, Governor, 282, 458,
484, 490; early life, 498; be-
comes Governor of Virginia,
498; relations with Blair, 498-
500; quarrel with Burgssses,
498.
State Activities in Relation to
Labor, 178-269; extension of,
185; classes of, 185; and poli-
tics, 185.
State Conference Convention of
Maryland, call for, 544; meeting
of; 545. 546. _
Statistical Science, contribution
of United States, 194; positive
influence of, 195.
Staunton Convention of 1816, 297;
meeting of 1825, 299.
Steiner, Dr. Bernard C, 512.
Strikes, duties of employment bu-
reaus to, 203.
Suffrage, in Virginia, 279-346; be-
140
Index.
[644
fore 1830, 279-92; law of 1646,
279; of 1656, 280; of 1670, 280;
Chas. II on, 281; code of 1705,
281; qualification of electors,
282-3; in Williamsburg charter,
284; Norfolk charter, 284; in
constitution of 1776, 286; in Jef-
ferson's plan, 286-7; in counties,
289; in Alexandria, 289; in
Richmond, 289; in unincorpo-
rated towns, 290; in town and
general elections, 290; per cent
of whites voting, 291-2; inequal-
ity of. 297; in convention of
1829-30, 301-10; in Marshall's
memorial, 302; in the Alexan-
dria constitution, 326; negro,
329; in the Underwood conven-
tion, 332-3, 336; establishment
of universal suffrage, 317-24; in
Maryland by the constitution
of 1864, 409.
Superintendents of mines, quali-
fications of, 256.
Sweating System, Regulation of,
239-49; in Massachusetts, 239,
247; in cities, 239; license re-
quired, 240; in New York, 242,
247; in Penn., 243; in Chicago,
244; in Ohio, 244; in New Jer-
sey, 245; in Indiana, 245; in
Maryland, 245; principles of
legislation upon, 246; results of,
248-9.
Tennessee, factory inspection in,
228.
Tevis. Colonel, concerning the
" Government Ticket," 372.
Trade, direct Chinese-Northwest;
American control of, 21; in-
fluence, 22.
Tyler, President Lyon G., 454,
458.
U
" Unconditional Union " party,
359, 361-3, .365, 366, 374, 378.
380-1, 383, 384, 401; support of
constitution of 1864, 437, 440.
" Underwood Constitution," 325-
46.
Unincorporated towns, suffrage
in, 290.
Union League Convention in
Maryland, 360, 361.
United States Bureau of Statis-
tics of Labor, 188, 190, 191.
V
Virginia, History of Suffrage in,
270-346; constitution of 1776,
286; and secession, 512, 546;
and the Peace Conference, 541,
544; and Maryland. 584-6.
Voting, Multiple in Virginia, 312;
corrupt. 314, 315, 324.
Voyages (special): of the Empress
of China, 13; of the Columbia,
etc., 15; of the Hope, 17 et seq. ;
of the Betsey, 23; of the Aspasia,
23; of the Essex, 25; of the Dol-
phin, 39; of the Vincennes, 41;
of the Antarctic, 43; of the Mar-
garet Oakley, 44; of the Potomac,
47-
W
Wallace, General Lew, relations
with Md., 379-80, 390-2.
Wallis, S. Teackle, report of, on
session of legislature, 535;
arraigns Hicks for duplicity,
537-8, 545; at the meeting in
Monument Square, April 19th,
558.
Washington, factory inspection
in, 228.
Washington, D. C, communica-
tion with the North. 513; meet-
ing of Peace Conference at,
541 et seq.; precarious position
of, 570.
West Virginia, factory inspection
in, 229; organization of, 325.
Whalers, early relations with the
natives, 37 et seq.
Whaling interests, American. 10,
22, 50; protection by Capt.
Porter, 10, 26.
Whig party, dissolution of, 521.
Wilkes, vote of Maryland Legis-
lature to, 625.
William and Mary College, 470-
88; early eflforts for a <'ollege
in Va. 470, 471; Blair's " de-
645]
Index.
141
sign," 472; charter Pind gifts
for, 473-6, 477, 478, 480, 484, 486;
buildings, 477, 479; instruction
at, 479-80; burning of, 483; In-
dian department, 483-5; grant
from General Assembly, 485;
endowment and scholarships of,
485-6; library, 486; faculty, 486;
influence, 487-8.
Williamsburg, suffrage in i;harter
of, 284, 285; votes in county,
288.
Willoughby, William Franklin,
State Activities in Relation to
Labor in the United States,
178-269.
Winans, Ross, arrest of, 599.
Wisconsin, factory inspection in,
226.
Women and children, in mines,
251-
Work in private families, regula-
tion of, 242.
World Power, United States as
a, 12, no, 159. 162.
Wren, Sir Christopher, plan of
college building, 477.
Yeardly, Governor, of Virginia,
279.
Yellot, Coleman, on attitude of.
Hicks, 533; " Proclamation " of,
566; in extra-session of the leg-
islature, 577; introduces the
" Safety Bill," 580; seat de-
clared vacant, 624.
DS Callahan, James Morton
518 American relations in the
.8 Pacific end the Far East
Z'}U 178^-1900
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11